kind. The request made by Mr. Compaore has not been met to date. The Supreme Court, before which the case was filed over fifteen years ago has passed no verdict on it. The Commission further notes that no reason with a basis in law was given to justify this delay in considering the case. Nor does the Respondent State give any legal reasons to justify the retention of the punishment meted out to these two magistrates. The Commission considers therefore that this is a violation of Articles 18 and 19 of the Fundamental Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the seventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and the Treatment of Offenders, held from 26th August to 6th September 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its Resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13th December 1985. 39. In communication 39/90, A. Pagnoule (for A. Mazou) /Cameroon, para. 17, the Commission stated: "Considering that the case under examination concerns the possibility of Mr. Mazou exercising his profession and that there are undoubtedly some people who depend on him for their survival, two years without any action on a case... constitutes a violation... of the Charter". 40. It is abundantly clear, as the Commission has already noted that the Respondent State has shown reasons as to why the rehabilitation measure was applied in a selective manner. The Commission also wonders at the reasons behind the Supreme Court's failure to proceed with the case. Fifteen years without any action being taken on the case, or any decision being made either on the fate of the concerned persons or on the relief sought, constitutes a denial of justice and a violation of the equality of all citizens before the law. It is also a violation of Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter, which proclaims the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 41. Article 4 of the Charter states that: "Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right". 42. The communication contains the names of various people who were victims of assassinations, forced disappearances, attacks or attempted attacks against their physical integrity, and acts of intimidation. The Respondent State did not deny these facts. Also, the State has never published the results of the commission of enquiry set up following the assassination of Mr. Clement Oumarou Ouédraogo, nor did it identify the perpetrators of the offences or take any measures against them. In conformity with its own jurisprudence which states that "whenever allegations of human rights abuses are not contested by the accused State, ... the Commission shall decide on the basis of the facts provided by the plaintiff and treat such facts as they are presented to it" (See communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/93 and 100/93, para. 49). The Commission therefore applies the same reasoning to the facts related in the present communication. The Commission would also like to reiterate a fundamental principle proclaimed in Article 1 of the Charter that not only do the States Parties recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, they also commit themselves to respect them and to take measures to give effect to them. In other words, if a State Party fails to ensure respect of