there was no withdrawal of any judge, and that it was a single Investigating Magistrate that handled the matter of Zongo and others, from the beginning to the end. 130. At the Public Hearing of 28 November 2013, the Counsels to the Respondent State had clearly explained that there had never been the removal of any judge whatsoever and that only one judge dealt with the case from the start to the finish. 131. The Applicants having themselves admitted that they had been mistaken in asserting that a judge had been withdrawn in a manner that undermined the independence of the judiciary, the Court is of the opinion that there was never any such withdrawal and that the matter had been considered by only one judge. Consequently, the Respondent cannot be blamed for interfering with the independence of the judiciary in this regard. 4) The issue of non-appearance of a witness 132. On the accusation of obstruction of the normal course of justice brought against the Respondent State, the Applicants further stated in their reply on the merits that everything was done to ensure that Frangois Compaoré was not heard by the court. 133. At the Public Hearing of 28 November 2013, the Respondent State noted that the Applicants were contradicting themselves by making such an allegation, whereas they themselves had at the same time indicated in their Application that he was heard on 16 January 2001 (supra, paragraph 16). They explained that the person in question was heard as a witness at least twice. 134. At the Public Hearing of 29 November 2013, in answer to a question by the Court, Counsel for the Respondent State confirmed that Francois Compaoré had been heard at least twice. 135. It emerges from all the minutes of the hearings produced by the Respondent through its letters dated 25 April 2013 and 18 December 2013, heard by the same that Francois Compaoré was mene oe Investigating Magistrate as a witness in the matter of Zongo and others, on two occasions, that is, on 17 January 2001 and 19 May 2006. aS