59. The Respondent further stressed that “......the Court of Final Appeal was position to give them satisfaction because, according to article 605 in the of the Criminal Procedure Code, ‘when it annuls a ruling or a judgement, the Criminal Bench of the Court of Final Appeal refers a case and the parties back to a court of the same level and jurisdiction as the one which issued the impugned decision or, if necessary, before the same court but differently constituted”. 60. This position was reiterated by the Respondent State during the Public Hearing of 7 and 8 March 2013, by emphasising that even though the decisions of the ‘Cour de cassation’ were not subject to any deadline, recourse to that jurisdiction was easy to initiate and was useful, efficient and sufficient, and “may have resulted in a decision different from that of the Investigating Magistrate and of the ‘Chambre d’accusation’ (Court of Criminal Appeal)”. 61. In its response on the merits of the matter, the Respondent again submitted that since the Applicants themselves had refused to make use of the “Cour de Cassation”, even though that remedy was available, easy and accessible, and could have resulted in the reversal of the ruling of 16 August 2006, they could no longer accuse Burkinabé courts - of being inefficient or unable to investigate, identify and act with diligence in bringing to justice those responsible for the assassination of Norbert Zongo. 62. In their application, the Applicants indicated that “in Burkinabé law, there is the possibility of appeal to the ‘Cour de Cassation’ under article 575 of the Criminal Procedure Code’, and that “the family of Norbert Zongo deliberately decided not to use that procedure and, instead, to go to the African Court because the judicial remedies it had sought for 9 years had proved to be inefficient and unsatisfactory, and seizure of the “Cour de Cassation” would have been a waste of time”. 63. They stressed that “having recourse to the “Cour de Cassation” would have been futile as it was common knowledge that the supreme jurisdiction took about five years, after it has been seized, to rule on the least of matters”. 64. In their reply to the preliminary objections, the Applicants stated in the main that “an Applicant was not bound to go to an inefficient or insufficient jurisdiction, that is, a 22 Ah- Oo ~&)