be heard by an Investigating Magistrate”, adding that: “some other strange occurrence in this case is the fact that the matter was frozen for over five years because of the illness of the principal accused, who later would be discharged for lack of evidence upon resumption of the hearing by the Investigating Magistrate before his demise”. 86. The Applicants further cite as example the case of Thomas Sankara, former President of Faso, in which they allege that, “the Sankara family, for fifteen (15) good years, had unsuccessfully requested the Burkinabée judicial system to identify those responsible for the murder of the former President and in particular to show them where he was buried”. 87. In their correspondence to the Court dated 28 April 2013, submitted upon request by the Court to the parties to submit all such documents as may corroborate the allegations they made during the Public Hearing of 7 and 8 March 2013, the Applicants maintained their position according to which 2001 and 2006, adding the handling of the matter was interrupted between that “....the judicial machine really came alive in this case only in May 2006 with the real face off before the Investigating Magistrate Wenceslas \Ilboudo, between the principal H. suspect, Staff Sergeant Marcel KAFANDO and a witness in the matter, Jean Racine YAMEOGO”. The Applicants explain that “....it was only on 4 May 2006 that the same Investigating Judge heard, for the first time, the widow of Norbert ZONGO as party to the civil suit”. The Applicants conclude by emphasizing that “in all the minutes of the hearings which closed Norbert ZONGO’s case, unless the State provides proof to the contrary, no mention was made of the hearings, adversarial procedures or other acts carried out by the Investigating Magistrate between 16 May 2001 and 30 May 2006”. 88. The Court would like, at this juncture, to recall that articles 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules provide that there is an exception to the exhaustion of local remedies where “it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. a) The concept of remedy proceedings 89. On the above issue, there is first a divergence of views between the parties on the ye exact meaning of the concept of “remedy procedure”. Whereas for the Respondent State, 28 oO hY ° A | ~O-