37. With regard to the interrogation of five Ministers of the Government, in this investigating procedure, the Defendant State avers that they were heard merely as simple witnesses. 38. While answering the grievances brought against it relating to violation of the right of pregnant women and infants, the Defendant State avers that in Côte d'Ivoire, Decree No. 69 - 189 of 14 May 1969 relating to establishment of prisons and regulating modalities for the execution of liberty deprivation sentences provides that: "The detained pregnant women are transferred to a hospital or a Maternity Home, when the pregnancy has reached an advanced stage. The nursing mother is taken back to the prison, together with her baby, whenever the state of health of either of the two allows for it" . Thus, national laws allow for the incarceration of pregnant women. 39. While relying on the provisions of Article 30 of the African Charter on the Rights and the Welfare of the Child, the State avers that the Text recommends the substitution of prison terms for pregnant women, or nursing mothers, or under aged children, with more favourable means of detention, for the development of both mother and child, only in situations where such is possible. 40. The International Conventions relied upon recommend that detained pregnant women should be delivered of their babies in conducive environment, when the time for delivery has approached, either in a hospital or a Maternity Home. This was exactly what the prison officials have observed, when they allowed Mrs. OBODJI Roselyne nee HOUSSOU AMELAN to be delivered of a baby on 20th September, 2008 in Clinique Notre Dame de l'incarcération, situated at Riviera, Palmeraie, Abidjan. She was admitted there on 14th September, 2008 and stayed till 12th October, 2008. The Caesarean method through which she put to bed [sic] could not, in any way be as a result of the torture that she might have been put through, while in detention, or the pains endured during child birth. 41. The Defendant State avers further that the Plaintiff enjoyed special treatment, owing to her social status, and her detention was effected in a mild manner. It therefore concluded by saying that the argument relating to the violation of the rights of pregnant women is groundless and should be thrown out. 42. In regard to the infant, who was separated from the mother, the State affirms that Article 162 of Decree 69-189 of 14th May, 1969 stipulates that: "Children could be left in the custody of their detained mother till age 2". Yet, in the instant case, Mrs. OBODJI Roselyne decided to be separated from her baby, thus electing the infant to be fed on baby food (tin powdered milk), with the alleged harm evoked, never reported on. 43. From the foregoing, the State of Côte d'Ivoire respectfully pleads with the Community Court of Justice to kindly declare the grievances presented by the Plaintiffs as groundless and to strike out their Application pure and simple. IV. The Court Hearing 44. By Order of the Court, the Parties were summoned to appear before it, in a hearing slated for 24th September, 2009. During the hearing, and before the beginning of the session, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire filed at the Registry of the Court a Defence Brief in which it raised an objection for the lack of competence of the Community Court of Justice, to hear the case, and the inadmissibility of the Application instituting proceedings, which were not earlier raised. This document was filed, and joined to the original writs. 45. The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire states that, following the notification, it had presented its own defence, by itself before constituting its counsel. It explains further that after designating its counsel, the latter applied for an extension of the time-limit for the Defence, but, that request could not be registered in the Registry of the Court. Finally, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire adds that it is averse to the idea of allowing the Applicants sufficient time to submit their Rejoinder to the Defence Brief. If the Honourable Court so decides. 46. On the other hand, Plaintiffs were opposed to filing of the document presented by the Defendant State, on the ground that it has had sufficient time to constitute its counsel, who is duty bound to respect the time-limit. 47. They however recognised the fact that they too filed in a request in which they informed the Court of the withdrawal of three of the Plaintiffs from, and the inclusion of one new, whose inclusion was earlier on inadvertent. Thus, they added that they were not opposed to an adjournment, to allow them the time to file more supplementary documents. 6