account the gravity of the facts, the circumstances of the case and the interest of justice. 40. The Respondent State affirms that, in the present case, it emerges from the investigation report that the Applicants were being prosecuted for serious offences and that releasing them posed a direct threat to the integrity of the investigation. According to the Respondent State, the investigating judge dismissed the Applicants’ applications for bail on the grounds that such a measure would affect the proper conduct of the case, especially as the charges against them were established. The Respondent State further submits that, contrary to the allegations contained in the Application, the 20 July 2023 decision of the Sousse Court of Appeal Indictment Division (the Indictment Division) came after the renewal of the committal order issued against the Applicants and before the end of the fourteen- (14) month period, as by law required. 41. The Respondent State further avers that on 16 June 2023, the investigating judge issued an order referring the Applicants to the Indictment Division. It further notes that, by Decision No. 46375 of 20 July 2023, the Sousse Court of Appeal referred the Applicants to the Criminal Division of the Sousse Court of Appeal. The aforementioned decision was the subject of a cassation appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor and several defendants, including the Applicants in the present case. The Respondent State further avers that the case was sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Cassation Court, whose President was requested to set a date for the hearing. According to the Respondent State, the case is still pending before the Cassation Court, with registration number 10049. * 42. In their Reply, the Applicants pray that the objection be dismissed. To this effect, they submit that in accordance with Article 85 of the CCP, pre-trial detention may not exceed fourteen (14) months, that is, four hundred and twenty (420) days. They maintain that they were placed in detention on 21 11