Applicants submit that the non-enforcement of the court decision awarding them the sum of Eight Hundred and Twelve Million, Four Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand (812,488,000) CFA Francs is attributable to the Respondent State whose employees, in this case the Prosecutor General, did nothing for more than seven (7) years to convene the joint chambers to rule on AGEF’s request. 80. The Applicants aver that even if they were not claimants at this stage of the procedure, they would have wished to defend their case before the joint Chambers within a reasonable time before proceeding to the execution of the judgment of 13 July 2007. The Applicants pray the Court to find a violation of their right to be tried within reasonable time and the right to the enforcement of a decision in their favour under Article 7 of the Charter. * 81. The Respondent State submits that referral of the matter to the President of the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court Prosecutor General for settlement under Section 32 of the Supreme Court Act is an option that is not time-bound. The Respondent State further submits that the Prosecutor General’s failure to refer the matter to the President of the Supreme Court for the purpose of convening the joint Chambers cannot be considered a violation of the rights of the Applicants, insofar as in 2016 they secured a decision quashing the order staying execution of the judgment of 9 April 2009. *** 82. The Court observes that the right to be tried within a reasonable time and the right to the execution of a court decision are two strands of the right to have one’s cause heard guaranteed under Article (7)(1) of the Charter. The Court will examine them in turns. i. The right to be tried within a reasonable time 20