sector and it is on his proposals that magistrates are presented for appointment by the President of the Republic. 82. In the light of the above, the Court finds that the appointment procedure and the composition of the HJC are skewed in favour of the executive power and that, consequently, the conditions for the independence of the HJC are not met. 83. Consequently, the Court considers that the Respondent State violated Article 26 of the Charter. B. On the alleged violation of the right of judges to strike 84. The Applicant asserts that the prohibition of judges from striking by Article 20 of Law No. 2018-01 of 4 January 2018 on the status of the judiciary, is arbitrary insofar as it is not justified in terms of compliance with Article 27(2) of the Charter and does not respect the fair balance between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the imperatives of protecting fundamental individual rights. 85. He states that the withdrawal of this right is illegal and violates international human rights instruments in particular Article 8 of the Charter as well as the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution since Article 31 of the Respondent State’s Constitution expressly guarantees the right to strike of all persons. According to him, what is guaranteed cannot be withdrawn but only regulated. 86. He further contends that the violation of the judges’ right to strike consequently leads to the violation of their right to information, freedom of opinion and of expression, their right to free association, and their right to 26