004043 On merits: vii) Declares unfounded the Applicant's allegation that he was not tried within a reasonable time; viii) Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to equality before the law guaranteed by Article 3 of the Charter, before the Cotonou Court of First Instance; ix) Finds that the Applicant's arrest and detention conditions were not in violation of Article 5 of the Charter; x) Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to liberty and security of his person provided under Article 6 of the Charter; xi) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by Article 3 of the Charter, given that Article 12 of the 2 July 2018 Law creating CRIET did not establish equality between the parties; xii) Finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter by undermining the Applicant's reputation and dignity; xiii) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be tried by a competent court provided under Article 7(1) (a) of the Charter; xiv) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter; xv) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence provided under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter; xvi) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be notified of the charges and to access the record of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter; xvii) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be represented by Counsel as provided under Article 14(3)(d) of ICCPR ; xviii) Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right of property provided under Article 14 of the Charter; xix) Finds that the Respondent State violated Article 26 of the Charter for having failed in its duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts; I