C. Alleged violation of the obligation to guarantee the independence of the legislature vis-à-vis the executive 96. The Applicant alleges that since the adoption of Constitutional Law No. 6/2011 of 16 December 2011 pertaining to the provisional organisation of public authority, the Respondent State has engaged in a vast scheme to dismantle constitutional institutions thereby trampling on the rule of law and all the principles of separation of powers. She maintains that decrees issued by the Head of State have had the effect of abolishing the bicameral legislature and replacing Parliament with a constituent National Assembly.28 * 97. The Respondent State contends that the principle of non-interference is a concept that is held to be at the heart of the internal authority of the State to safeguard its independence and sovereignty. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the only exception to this principle is when State undertakes actions that threaten international peace and security or commits acts of aggression against another State. 98. The Respondent State also asserts that its Constitution enshrines the independence and separation of powers and that no one may interfere in the exercise of the internal authority of a State with a view to compel it to discuss issues relating to the independence of its institutions under the Charter. *** 99. The Court emphasises that separation of powers is of capital importance in a democratic society, since it ensures balance of power between the executive and the legislature as well as their proper functioning. 28 Decree-Law of 23 March 2011 and the election of members of the National Constituent Assembly on 23 October 2011. 26