he is a member of, save in case of flagrant crime or offence as provided for under the preceding paragraph herein above, or in case of a final criminal sentence.” 25. For the Applicants, the proceedings instituted against them of the immunities Honourable Court and to privileges find recounted in concreto, above that their shall in violation enable the rights are human violated and they ask the Court to order any appropriate measure it may deem expedient, by granting their requests. Regarding violation of the principle of separation — - of powers and the principles of constitutional convergence 26. The Applicants cite the ECOWAS Protocol on Deniocracy and Good Governance, which enshrines separation of the powers of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, as principles of~constitutional convergence shared by all the Member States of ECOWAS. 27. They affirm that the Republic of Senegal ane Illegal-Wealth Court, which no more formed part of the judicial set-up of Senegal, the last-vestige of the court beet Law’ No: “84-19-of 2 February: 1984 setting out the structural that the sole objective framework of the Judiciary of senegal; of resuscitating the court was to neutralise and persecute the principal political opponents of the new power in place. 28. They emphasise that the Defendant State is simply bent on harassing former Ministers and supporters of the former President of the Republic of Senegal, in viciation of the provisions of Article 10 of the Protocol on Democracy and good Governance, which provides that: “All holders of power at all levels shall refrain from acts of intimidation or harassment oni sae, against defeated candidates or their supporters.” Il. VIOLATION OF THE APPLICANTS’ HUMAN RIGHTS 29. For the Applicants, what is at stake in the instant case is violation of the principle of free movement of persons and principle of equality of citizens before the law well as violation of the right to fair trial. goods, violation of the and before the courts, as @ : brought back to life, the Anti