alleged violation(s) and not sufficient to merely cite provisions of the Charter allegedly violated. 46. The Respondent State further avers that the articles cited in the Application refer to one or more human rights, the express enunciation of which would have enabled the Respondent State to know precisely the violation for which it is allegedly liable and to defend itself better. It consequently concludes that the Application is flawed in its presentation and deserves to be declared inadmissible. 47. The Applicants submit that the Respondent State’s arguments have no legal basis and are unfounded insofar as the alleged violations are clearly indicated in their Application. In this regard, they rely on the provisions of Article 7(1)6 and 267 of the Charter. 48. The Court notes that in making a determination on its material jurisdiction, it has already considered the objection based on failure to specify the provisions allegedly violated. The Court, therefore, does not find it necessary to examine the same objection to the admissibility of the Application. 49. The Court consequently dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on the ground that the Applicant did not sufficiently elaborate on the alleged violation. 6 Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force […]; d) The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 7 States Parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter. 12