and effective remedies do exist but have not been utilised and not in the entire procedure” adding that “the unduly prolonged nature of the procedure does not apply in matters where remedy is available (Such) as the ‘Cour de Cassation’ in the instant case, but not utilised whereas it could have been accessed by the Applicants without the least impediment”. 73. The Respondent considered where further argues that “the unduly prolonged available and accessible remedies are concept is also not ineffective as they afford litigants the opportunity to cure the alleged violation”; and then goes on to note that: “Ironically, the five (5) years which they didn’t want to “loose” before the ‘Cour de Cassation’, Human and were spent idling, before the matter was Peoples’ Rights (...) whereas referred to the African the African Commission on Court on Human and Peoples Rights was functional to hear the alleged violations...” 74. The | Respondent Commission on Human further argues, based on the jurisprudence of the African and Peoples’ Rights, “that it is up to the complainant seeking a waiver “to prove the veracity of the facts alleged either by trying to seize the national courts or by presenting a specific case where actions in court were finally proven to be ineffective...” and that in the instant case “the Applicants do not present any evidence as to the veracity of the facts which they are alleging”. 75. Lastly, the Respondent State argues that “the duration of the handling of the Norbert Zongo case cannot be referred to as one in which local remedies have been unduly prolonged” and that “this duration is tied to the complexity of the dossier, the absence of formal evidence concerning identification of the culprits and the need for the Courts to respect the principle of presumption of innocence”. 76. In its response on the merits of the matter, the Respondent invoking the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, argues that “the reasonableness of the duration of a procedure is determined on the basis of the circumstances of the case and more specifically on grounds of the complexity of the matter, the comportment of the Applicant and of the competent authorities”. . 25