93. On the alleged complexity of the case, the Respondent State does not show how this case is more complicated than other cases of murder committed in the absence of eye witnesses. In particular, it does not provide the reasons which could have prevented the Police and the judiciary from apprehending the culprits, nor does it indicate the special insurmountable obstacles that would have been faced by the officials in that regard. 94. On the absence of formal evidence in respect of identification of the culprits, it is indeed the responsibility of the Respondent to deploy all the means at its disposal to find the presumed assassins, even where the said assassins were initially unknown. 95. As for the well-founded concern of respecting the presumption of innocence of the accused, this does not absolve the Respondent State from proceeding reasonably with the procedure which had already been initiated. In the instant case, one does not see how the procedural guarantees that must be accorded to accused persons could really have delayed the procedure. 96. On the comportment of the Applicants, the latter clearly had no interest in delaying the procedure, and could not be held responsible for the comportment of witnesses (the representative of Reporters without Borders and Moise Ouédraogo) who did not submit the information in their possession to the Burkinabé judicial authorities in a timely manner. Furthermore, the requests by the said witnesses to be heard by the judicial authorities could not have delayed procedure which lasted till August 2006, because the requests in question were made in 2006, after legal proceedings on the matter had been closed. 97. On the diligence with which the State authorities acted, this the merits and issue applies rather to will be examined in relation with the allegation of violation of the right for one’s Cause to be heard by competent national courts (infra, para. 141 to 156). 98. On the hearing of witness Frangois Compaoré in January 2001, the Court is of the opinion that this did not cause unreasonable delay in the investigation given that other procedures related to the investigations were carried out by the Respondent’s authorities between the date of the assassinations and that of the said hearing (supra, paragraph bho Me