58. Under the procedure for waiver of parliamentary immunity, no charges were officially laid against the Applicant, since the special Commission had to simply hear him on the requisition for waiver of parliamentary immunity submitted by the Federal Attorney to enable him to organize his defense effectively. 59. The application of the texts in question presupposes the existence of criminal proceedings pending before the competent courts; 60. The texts referred to are inapplicable to the case at hand. 61. The requisition for waiver of parliamentary immunity was addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly and, to that end, the Federal Attorney attached a USB key containing only the elements he mentioned. 62. That it was not an Exhibit cited by the Federal Attorney's letter. 63. This USB key did not contain any elements different from those contained in the Federal Attorney’s letter. 64. With regard to the assistance of a lawyer, it must be said here that the Applicant was not before a court or a disciplinary committee, that the purpose of the Committee was not to judge a member of Parliament, but to hear him with a view to lifting his parliamentary immunity under Article 79(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Togolese National Assembly; 65. It follows from this text that the Parliament Member in question can only appoint one of his colleagues to represent him and that this text excluded the presence of a lawyer because it is a purely internal matter of the National Assembly. 66. That the Applicant also maintains that only 6 days elapsed between the first letter from the Speaker of the National Assembly and the decision to 15