w.3 14.1n addition to the above claims, which relate to allthe Applicants, the First Applicant and the Seventh Applicant submit that the sentences imposed on them, thirty (30) years imprisonment, was heavier than the penalty in force at the time of their conviction. lt is their submission, therefore, that their sentences are contrary to Article 13 (6)(c) of the Respondent State's Constitution and section 285 and 286 of the Respondent State's Penal Code. lt is also the contention of the Applicants, that sections 4(c) and 5(a) of the Minimum Sentences Act are invalid as they contravene Article 6a(5) of the Constitution of the Respondent State hence the sentences imposed upon them are illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 7(2) of the Charter. II!. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 15.The Application was filed on 17 April 2015 and on 28 September 2015 it was served on the Respondent State. 16.On 22 September 2016, the Registry received the Respondent State's Response to the Application. 17.On 26 September 2017, the Registry received the Applicant's Reply to the Respondent State's Response and this was transmitted to the Respondent State on 2 Oclober 2017. 18.On 10 May 2018, the Registry received the Applicant's submissions on reparations and these were transmitted to the Respondent State on 22 May 2018. 19. Notwithstanding several reminders and extensions of time, the Respondent State did not file submissions on reparations. 20.On the 11 April 2019, pleadings were closed and the Parties were duly informed 0rY )V, 6 \