77.
On this score, the Respondent
once again sought to show how complex the matter
had been (murder in open countryside; absence of eye witnesses; vehicle and corpses
burnt to ashes; x-rays and forensic reports carried out by experts in Burkina Faso and
abroad;
hearing of hundreds of witnesses)
and concluded that “the more complex the
matter, the more protracted the investigations would be”.
78. The Respondent then added that the comportment of the Applicants’ advocates could
have caused
an extension of the duration of the hearing.
As proof in support, the
Respondent refers to the fact that the representative of Reporters Without Borders and a
certain Mr. Moise Ouédraogo claimed to be in possession of information useful for the
investigation without submitting such information to the State Prosecutor of Burkina Faso
at the time of the investigation, and waited until the end of the case to make mention of
it.
Further reference was made to the fact that the representative of Burkinabé Human
and Peoples’ Rights Movement who had presided over the Independent Commission of
Enquiry “had not reported these facts to the State Prosecutor of Faso, facts of which he
could not have been unaware”.
79. The Respondent finally pleads that “it cannot be accused of the laxity or inaction on
the part of the political, administrative and judicial authorities” (creation of the ICE which
included national and international journalists and the MBDHP which was both a member
and the chair of the ICE; seizure of the Court on the basis of ICE report).
It further states
that “it can also not be blamed for not providing effective and efficient local remedies to
the beneficiaries of Norbert Zongo and his companions” (opening of the investigations
against X; allocation of significant financial and material resources to the Investigating
Magistrate; conduct of
autopsy
and forensic examination on the objects found in the
vehicle and on the arms and ammunition
similar to those found at the scene of the
incident, photographs, transportation to the scene of the incident, hearing of dozens of
witnesses;
arrest and detention of Marcel Kafando on 2 February 2001).
It conciudes
that “the investigating magistrate cannot be blamed for having waited for two years before
questioning the prime suspects,
as if he had not initiated any preliminary procedure
(hearing of witnesses, request for forensic evidence, etc....) from the time he was seized
of the matter’.
.
~
@e.
AN