be heard by an Investigating Magistrate”, adding that: “some other strange occurrence in
this case is the fact that the matter was frozen for over five years because of the illness
of the principal accused,
who
later would
be discharged
for lack of evidence
upon
resumption of the hearing by the Investigating Magistrate before his demise”.
86. The Applicants further cite as example the case of Thomas Sankara, former President
of Faso, in which they allege that, “the Sankara family, for fifteen (15) good years, had
unsuccessfully requested the Burkinabée judicial system to identify those responsible for
the murder of the former President and in particular to show them where he was buried”.
87. In their correspondence to the Court dated 28 April 2013, submitted upon request by
the Court to the parties to submit all such
documents as may corroborate the allegations
they made during the Public Hearing of 7 and 8 March 2013, the Applicants maintained
their position
according to which
2001 and 2006, adding
the handling of the matter was interrupted between
that “....the judicial machine
really came alive in this case only
in May 2006 with the real face off before the Investigating Magistrate Wenceslas
\Ilboudo, between the principal
H.
suspect, Staff Sergeant Marcel KAFANDO and a witness
in the matter, Jean Racine YAMEOGO”.
The Applicants explain that “....it was only on 4 May 2006 that the same Investigating
Judge heard, for the first time, the widow of Norbert ZONGO as party to the civil suit”.
The Applicants conclude by emphasizing that “in all the minutes of the hearings which
closed
Norbert ZONGO’s
case,
unless the State provides proof to the contrary,
no
mention was made of the hearings, adversarial procedures or other acts carried out by
the Investigating Magistrate between 16 May 2001 and 30 May 2006”.
88. The Court would like, at this juncture, to recall that articles 56(5) of the Charter and
Rule 40 of the Rules provide that there is an exception to the exhaustion of local remedies
where “it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”.
a) The concept of remedy proceedings
89. On the above issue, there is first a divergence of views between the parties on the
ye
exact meaning of the concept of “remedy procedure”. Whereas for the Respondent State,
28
oO
hY
°
A
|
~O-