CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 page 5 2.8 On 26 January 2000, by decision No. 14, the Ouagadougou Court of Appeal set aside order No. 06/98 of 23 March 1998 and declared the ordinary courts incompetent. 2.9 According to the authors, despite Court of Appeal decision No. 14 and their own application of 27 January 2000, the Procurator of Faso refused or omitted to report the case to the Minister of Defence so that the Minister could institute proceedings. 2.10 On 27 January 2000, counsel challenged decision No. 14 by lodging an appeal with the judicial division of the Supreme Court. 2.11 On 19 June 2001, by decision No. 46, the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that no bond had been deposited.3 2.12 On the same day, counsel requested the Prosecutor-General attached to the Supreme Court to report the case to the Minister of Defence so that the Minister could institute proceedings.4 Also on the same day, in anticipation of a notification from the Procurator’s Office, counsel requested the Minister of Defence to issue an order to initiate proceedings. 2.13 On 19 June 2001, during an interview on Radio France Internationale focusing largely on the Sankara case, the President of Burkina Faso stated that the Minister of Defence should not have to deal with court cases.5 2.14 On 25 June 2001, a further application was addressed to the Procurator of Faso. 2.15 On 23 July 2001, the Procurator of Faso replied to counsel, stating that their request related to acts categorized as offences committed on 15 October 1987, in other words, over 13 years and 8 months previously, and that, in its decision of 26 January 2000, the Court of Appeal had declared itself incompetent and had instructed the parties to refer the matter to a different court. 2.16 On 25 July 2001, counsel challenged the reply provided by the Procurator of Faso,6 and once again requested that the case should be brought before the military courts, in accordance with article 71 (3) of the Code of Military Justice, since a claimant for criminal indemnification may not lodge an appeal. To date, no reply from the Procurator, and hence no referral to the Minister of Defence, have been reported. The complaint 3.1 The authors consider that the failure to organize a public inquiry and legal proceedings to determine the identity and civil and criminal responsibilities of Thomas Sankara’s assassins, and also the failure to correct his death certificate, constitute a serious denial of justice in terms of their protection as members of the Sankara family, in breach of articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. They consider, moreover, that the failure to conduct an inquiry, and hence the failure to uphold guarantees relating to equality before the law, and also the Procurator’s refusal to refer the case to the Minister of Defence, thus preventing their complaint from being resolved, are attributable to their political opinions, in breach of articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant.