Alyan Abu Garir in twenty five sessions. During these sessions, all the accused pleaded guilty of having committed the crimes attributed to them‟. 154. The Respondent State contends that as a result of the findings of the PPO, the victims were referred to Court in suit number No. 40/2005 of breaching security under the State of Emergency by committing capital offence. The Court, the Respondent State contends, had responded throughout its sittings to all the requests made by the victims. They also submit that the Court had during deliberations allowed the victims and their defence to produce evidence in support of their case and to bring their own to witnesses. They further submit that the Complainants were heard and that their request to be examined by a forensic doctor was also granted. They submit that the court equally heard the Complainants submissions in defence of the victims in 12 sessions and that they were allowed access to visit victims whenever they requested. They also submit that the Complainants were given copies of the minutes of investigations and all the records of court sittings as well as the witnesses and that the court was convinced that their confessions were valid. 155. Concerning the Complainants‟ allegation that the fair trial rights of the victims were violated, the Respondent State adopted its earlier position that the victims had a fair and just trial before a legal, national and competent court. They submit that the trial sessions were public and were attended by the lawyers who represented the victims; and that, the trial was concluded within a reasonable period. 156. The Respondent State argues that it is clear from the court processes that the victims were tried before a legal, national and independent court constituted of judges who enjoy judicial immunity. This according to the Respondent State negates the allegation of a any violation of Article 26 of the African Charter. 45