Other Causes of Delays in the Dergue Trials 233. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State has also contravene Article 7(1)(d) by the failure of the Respondent State to decide how to handle the matter and the the failure of the prosecution to present evidence on time was the major problem. 234. The Complainants submit that what occurred in Ethiopia during the trial of the Dergue officials, was prejudice and lack of activity by the courts handling the cases and thus constituted a violation of Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter. They argue that the Respondent State was already aware of the facts and seriousness of the cases against the Dergue officials but failed to act with the due diligence required and, thereby violating their right to a speedy trial. They further argue that the nature of the violations against the Victims entitles them to relief. The African Commission agrees. In keeping with the spirit of Articles 7(1)(d) of the African Charter an accused person in detention is entitled to have his case given priority and expedited by the proper authorities. 235. The African Commision also agrees with the Complainants that the complexity of a case should not debar domestic courts from acting with due diligence in dealing with a case on the Merits.60 At any rate, it is the responsibilities of States Parties to the African Charter to organize their judiciary in such a way that the right guaranteed in Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter can be effectively enjoyed. In Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples/Burkina Faso61 the African Commission found that 15 years without a decision on the relief sought or the fate of the people concerned or any action at all on the case amounted to a denial of justice and a violation of the right to an impartial trial within a reasonable time. In Annette Pagnoulle (on behalf of Abdoulaye Mazou)/ Cameroon,62 the African Commission found the Cameroonian Government in violation of Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter because Mr. Mazou did not have a judgment on his case which was before the Supreme Court for two years and he was not given any reason for the delay. 236. Similarly in Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana63, the African Commission held that detaining the Complainant for seven years without trial before his escape “clearly violates the “reasonable time” 60 See Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras Series C No. 99 [2003] IACHR 2 (7 June 2003) where the Inter-American Court held, inter alia, at paragraph 130 of the decision that “even if this were a complex case regarding the merits, the domestic courts must act with due diligence to decide on hearing of the case”. 61 Communication No. 204/97. 62 Communication No. 39/90. 63 Communication No. 103/93. 54