89. In the instant case, the Head of State’s intervention in the promotion, discipline and dismissal of judges constitutes interference in the judiciary and truncates its independence. 90. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Respondent State violated the independence of the judiciary, protected by Article 26 of the Charter. ii. Exercise of the powers of the public prosecutor by the Head of State 91. The Applicant submits that by virtue of the so-called exceptional measures taken pursuant to the Decree of 22 September 2021, the Head of State is the head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 92. The Court recalls that it has already held that the independence of the judiciary requires that courts perform their functions without external interference and without being tributary to any other governmental authority.27 93. The Court notes that, speaking on 25 July 2021, the Head of State announced that he would dissolve the Assembly of People’s Representatives, lift the immunity of its members and govern by decree. He also indicated that he would be head of the office of the public prosecutor. However, it does not emerge from the decree-law of 22 September 2021 that the President of the Republic presides over the public prosecutor’s office. 94. Based on this finding, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation on the grounds that she does not sufficiently prove same. 95. The Court holds that on this issue the Respondent State did not violate the independence of the judiciary, protected by Article 26 of the Charter. 27 Action pour la protection des droits de l'homme v. Côte d'Ivoire, (merits ) (18 November 2016) 1 AfCLR, 668, § 117; XYZ v. Republic of Benin, (merits and reparations) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 83, § 61. 25