164. And that in the instant case, the remedies did not allow any reparation, on the contrary, they only confirmed the first decision. 165. He concluded that must be found a violation of the State of Niger's obligation to make the Applicant have access to justice within a reasonable time. 166. On its turn, the Defendant submits that, as regards preliminary enquiries, the concept of reasonable time is assessed in relation to the seriousness of the facts alleged against the accused, the complexity of the investigations required to establish the truth and the exercise of the rights of the defence. 167. That the provisions of Article 132(2) of the Niger Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 2016-21 of June 16, 2016) do not apply to the Applicant, who is the subject of charges and conviction for murder. 168. Indeed, Article 132(2)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure excludes from the scope of the provisions, which limit the maximum length of pretrial detention, cases of voluntary manslaughter, murder, poisoning by parricide, as well as criminal theft and embezzlement of public funds. 169. The facts charged against the Applicant are extremely serious, involving murder, attacks with explosives, participation in the organisation and commission of terrorist acts, acts of support and the supply of arms. 170. The complexity of the investigations can be deduced from the circumstances of the two attacks, the foreign elements, the high number of victims, and the extent of the damage. 171. That in certain respects, the Applicant's dilatory behaviour has largely harmed his interests, through the multiplicity of appeals he has lodged with two different lawyers. 172. That in fact, on 5 November 2019, when one of his lawyers filed a new application for provisional release in favour of the Applicant, and less than a month after the judicial review had dismissed a similar appeal, point by 33