001364 57.As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the admissibility requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 40 of the Rules and accordingly declares it admissible. VII. MERITS 58.The Applicants allege that the Respondent state violated their rights to a fair trial, to life and to dignity. A. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 59. Alleged violations of the right to a fair trial relate to the rights (i) to be tried within a reasonable time, (ii) to be heard and (iii) to be tried by a competent court. i. 60. The right to be tried within a reasonable time The Applicants allege that the delay incurred by the Court of Appeal in completing the review process constitutes a violation of their right to be tried wlthin a reasonable time. The Applicants, in their Reply, submit that although the process was eventually completed, the revlew was not determined until the filing of the present Application on 26 March 2015 whereas the notice of review was filed on 24 March 2013. 6'l.The Applicants assert that, at the time of filing their Application before this Court, the hearing of the review application had not been scheduled. They further submit that the delay in completing the review process is not reasonable by any of the factors recognised by the Court, which are the complexity of the case, actions of the concerned parties and the conduct of the judicial authorities. 62.The Respondent state denies the allegation that the review case was delayed and avers that the Applicants have failed to make a copy of their review application available. l8