Indeed, Article 7 provides as follows: “When the facts ... concerning a person entitled to immunity or privilege from prosecution shall transmit the case file to the competent ..., the Special Authority, Prosecutor for the purposes of prosecution.” 47. The Court notes, on this point, that the Applicants were summoned and heard by organs of the criminal investigation police, even if frequently; that the Defendant State admits and affirms that it was a matter of preliminary inquiry, and that none of the Applicants were remanded or held in custody. 48. The Court equally emphasises that Article 101(2) of the Constitution . Senegal, which Applicants, Wealth, confers the privilege talks of “criminal liability”, and for which the Applicants (judicial hearing). Understood privileges of immunity and immunities are from Article being prosecution 7 of Law heard, talks 81-53 the Applicants do not on the Illicit of “proceedings” as such, all the texts conferring those on on of intend the rights of use of a ~ preliminary inquiry as a starting point for judicial proceedings. 49. The Court recalls that a preliminary inquiry in any procedure not result in a phase ofgiudicial proceedings; Defendant State, the said judicial proceedings and since may or may in the words gigthe shall be preceded by a house arrest, t will be too early to talk of violation of the Applicants’ privileges. 50. The Court immunities, is of the as at the view that current the stage Applicants’ of the rights preliminary to privileges inquiry, are and not compromised; that those rights are due where judicial proceedings are set in motion; that since a preliminary inquiry may not necessarily end up in judicial proceedings, in that the facts being investigated may not amount to the offence being sought after in the investigative process, the Court concludes on this issue by stating that the Applicants’ rights to privileges and immunities from prosecution are not violated. 16