before the ordinary courts, cannot be considered as an available and effective remedy in the circumstances of this case. This reform, he further contends, has only served to prolong his detention. 31. Regarding his second contention, the Complainant submits that, as a result of the foregoing, the procedure has been unduly prolonged by the multiple and unwarranted adjournments; that it has been punctuated by numerous hindrances as reported in the summary of the Complaint. In support of the allegation that the procedure has been unduly prolonged, the Complainant argues that the interrogation did not begin until eleven (11) months into his pre-trial detention. 32. In addition, the Complainant submits that the four separation orders issued by the examining magistrate prolonged the proceedings whereas the Cameroonian Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for separation in any of its provisions. Moreover, he argues that the committal orders were aimed at maintaining the validity of the remand warrants. On this same point, he further submits that between two separation orders, the examining magistrate did not conduct any investigation whereas the grounds for the separation orders were that some of the charges required further investigation. 33. Regarding remedies that are actually available, the Complainant submits that they were ineffective due to the fact that they failed to respond to the petitions filed or that they were unduly prolonged beyond the reasonable or legally prescribed period. In support of these allegations, the Complainant argues that one year after the filing of the petition for annulment of the second separation order, no action had been taken. 34. Concerning a similar petition filed against the first separation order, the judge took seven (7) months to respond and did so in the negative. The Complainant further 8