unjustifiable since the goals sought were not achieved. The multiplication of procedural acts resulted in prolonging the detention - at least for some of the charges - beyond the maximum period allowed by Cameroonian criminal legislation. 68. The goal would have been reached and the due diligence sought by the separation orders achieved if the case had reached the trial stage, at least for the charges concerned. From the facts of the Communication, it appears to the Commission that the complaint raised by the Complainant is not so much about his release, but rather about the right to see the end of the proceedings and to know his fate within a reasonable period. 69. To justify the prolonging of the remedies, the Respondent State cites the heavy workload of the examining magistrate in charge of the case and points out that the same magistrate was also dealing with many other cases involving people whose detention period had exceeded the maximum statutory period of eighteen (18) months. The Commission is of the view that this argument confirms the noncompliance with the statutory timeframes which in this case are deemed to be the reasonable time. The Respondent State has an obligation, under the African Charter, to ensure effective remedies, at least by respecting its own national legislation.12 70. The Commission notes that in actual fact, under the circumstances of this Communication, the commencement of the prolonging of remedies dates back to the beginning of the proceedings and is evidenced by the detention of the Complainant for a period of eleven (11) months before the first interrogation. In the course of the proceedings, the detention continued to be extended without any 12 Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence & Interights v. Cameroon op. cit. para 67. 18