On the allegation of violation of the right to have one’s cause heard by competent national courts guaranteed under article 7 of the Charter, the Court is obliged to conclude, for the same reasons, that the case brought by the Applicants was not addressed within reasonable time. 2) Role of the Prosecutor in the legal system of the Respondent State 121. In their response on the merits, the Applicants sought to show that justice had been impeded by the Executive through the Prosecutor of Faso. In that regard, they emphasize the fact that “the Prosecutor of Faso, as a judicial officer ‘comes under’ the supervision and control of his hierarchical superiors and under the authority of the Minister of Justice, a situation which imposes on him the obligation to be loyal to his superiors’. 122. They added that “the observed delay in the handling of the case of Norbert Zongo and his companions can be explained by Executive interference in the functioning of the judicial machine, notably through the Prosecutor of Faso ... who interfered in the choice of those to be heard and in the deployment of judicial staff during that period, thus making it possible for the real accomplices of the suspects identified by the Independent Commission of Enquiry to escape from the strong arms of the law”. 123. At the Public Hearing of 28 and 29 November 2013, the Applicants reiterated the position according to which the role played by the Prosecutor in Burkinabeé judicial system was a violation of the letter and spirit of the Charter particularly because he was hierarchically subordinate to the Minister of Justice. 124. At the Public Hearing on 28 November 2013, Counsel for the Respondent retorted, in regard to the role of the Prosecutor in the Burkinabé judicial system, that Burkinabé is not “a strange entity in law” and that “it was part of the romano-germanic system of law”, like many other countries. The Respondent explained that the Prosecutor was first and foremost a judicial officer who has sworn to work independently and with dignity. 125. Article 7 of the Charter speaks of the right to have one’s cause heard by competent national courts (italics added). What is important under this article is the independence of the judge seized of the matter. 36 Me