receive instructions from the Minster of Justice, or, according to which the Investigating Magistrate was not bound to conduct adversarial procedure during investigations. 192. In its Response on the merits of the matter, the Respondent State started by observing that the Applicants “had concluded that Burkina Faso had violated article 1 of the African Charter, without stating which “legislative or other measures” adopted by Burkina Faso which made it unable to “guarantee had not been available, effective, accessible and satisfactory remedies”. The Respondent State rejects the allegation and argues, on the contrary, that it had not only ratified key international human rights conventions, but had also at domestic level adopted the Constitution of 2 June 1991 and a long list of legislative instruments and regulations. The Respondent then concluded that: “_..in claiming that the State of Burkina Faso had violated article 1 of the African Charter, thereby leaving the impression that no internal measures had been taken by the State to ensure protection of the human rights and liberties guaranteed by the said Charter, the Applicants were making a completely baseless and gratuitous assertion’. 193. At the Public Hearing of 28 November 2013, the Respondent State reiterated this position and asked the other party to at least indicate the measures which the Respondent State was yet to take to comply with article 1 of the Charter. 194. In its Ruling of 21 June 2013, the Court recognised its competence to hear the allegation of violation of human rights by the Respondent State, “in as much as the said allegations were directly linked to the allegation of violation of the right of Applicants to have their cause heard by competent national courts”. (supra, paragraph 32). 195. In that regard, the Applicants allege the violation of article 1 of the Charter in the sense that the Respondent State had not taken the necessary steps to ensure respect for the right to have their cause heard by competent national courts, as guaranteed by article 7 of the Charter, and because some measures it had adopted were at variance with the same article 7. For its part, the Respondent argued that it had adopted all the 52 be xe I