that is, two (2) months and twenty-six (26) days after lodging their appeal. The Court emphasises that the fact that the Applicants did not complete these formalities until two (2) months after filing their motion for a stay of execution may have had an impact on the duration of the proceedings. 68. The Court finds that in such circumstances, the Applicants’ case was heard within a reasonable time. 69. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time guaranteed under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. iii. Right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. 70. The Applicants contend that considering the unfolding of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Respondent State failed in its duty to guarantee the independence of the courts and that their right to be tried by an impartial tribunal was violated. 71. The Applicants further submit that that the Supreme Court, without referral, quashed the Kayes Court of Appeal's judgment without their knowledge, pursuant to Judgment No. 17 of 17 August 2018, and this, without any legal basis or reasoning. 72. For its part, the Respondent State submits that the Application be dismissed. It raises the same arguments as those raised in respect of the alleged violation of the Applicants’ right to seize domestic courts. *** 17