52. It was by virtue of a court decision, namely that of the Supreme Court of Niger and following the normal and due course of the investigation that the Applicant was kept in pre-trial detention. 53. This Court has repeated several times that it refrains from interfering in the internal jurisdiction of national courts. 54. That in the instant case, it is precisely a question of ruling on the legitimacy and legality of preventive detention, on which the national courts have already ruled. 55. This Court can no longer rule on this issue without setting itself up as the Supreme Court responsible for censuring domestic judicial decisions: That it is established that the Court does not have such competence. 56. Still in the sense of the delimitation of its competence, the Court also has affirmed its refusal to set itself up as a judge of internal law issues. 57. In the instant case, the determination of the maximum duration of the Applicant's pre-trial detention, as well as its legality, necessarily requires the reading and interpretation of national texts, in particular the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 58. That in fact as the Applicant points out pursuant Article 605(8): “the total duration of pre-trial detention may not exceed four years in criminal matters and two years in non-contractual matters”. 59. However, the same Code of Criminal Procedure provides in Article 131 (1) that: “Pre-trial detention may not exceed a reasonable period of time, taking into account the gravity of the facts alleged against the accused and the complexity of the investigations necessary to establish the truth.” 60. In order to be able to rule on the lawfulness of pre-trial detention, this Court would necessarily have to go through an interpretation of those provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that they are reconcilable: however, this Court does not consider itself competent to do so. 11