139. On the hearing of the civil parties, even if they had been heard towards the end of the procedure, the hearings actually took place before the Magistrate rendered his decision and it is this latter consideration that matters when looking at the issue of fairness of the procedure. Consequently, it is the opinion of the Court that the Respondent cannot be accused of violating the principle of fair trial in this regard. 140. On the absence of adversarial procedure between the suspect and the civil parties, it lies with the national judge to determine whether this is necessary and useful based on the specific circumstances of each case. {In the instant case, the Applicants have not shown whether adversarial procedure was useful and necessary and have not provided any proof of a request for that purpose to which the Investigating Magistrate had failed to respond. Consequently, the Respondent cannot be accused of violating the principle of fair trial in this specific area. 6) The issue of the despatch with which the Respondent provided remedy in the instant case 141. In their submission, the Applicants assert, citing the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, that “..: Burkina Faso was bound by article 7 of the Charter, to guarantee available, efficient, accessible and satisfactory remedies for violation of the rights which it guarantees”. 142. As noted earlier, the Applicants maintain that the Respondent State had, inter alia, the obligation to carry out investigations on those responsible for the murder of Norbert Zongo and his companions and to try them. Instead of doing so, however, the State chose to obstruct efforts in that regard by the families of the victims. 143. In their reply to the preliminary objections, the Applicants maintain that “the ineffectiveness of the remedies initiated was compounded by the shortcomings on the part of the national authorities who did nothing to ensure that the assassins of Norbert Zongo and his companions were actually arrested”. 144. In a letter dated 28 April 2013 filed in Court following a request by the Court at the Public Hearing of 7 and 8 March 2013, the Applicants again explained that “... it was " Wey e- we ~~ ®