104.
On the question as to when the local remedy procedure is to be deemed to have
started, it should first
be stated that, contrary to the Respondent’s assertions (supra
paragraph 81), the procedure at issue here is not that of the prosecution
principal suspect in the matter,
and trial of the
but rather that of the search for, trial and judgment of the
assassins of Late Norbert Zongo and his companions, because
it is the beneficiaries of
the latter who have brought the action before the Court, in pursuit of the right to have their
cause heard
by competent
national courts.
commencement
would
started
with the matter.
dealing
That being the understanding, the date of
therefore be that on which the Respondent's judicial system
Consideration
of the case
reveals
that the
Police
embarked on routine investigations at the scene of the crime on the very day the murder
was committed, that is, 13 December
1998. (supra, paragraph
18). It is therefore from
that date that the Burkinabé judicial outfit initiated proceedings,
and it is from that date
that the length of the local remedy procedure, under consideration, should be determined.
105. Since the local judicial procedure was closed with the expiry of the deadline for
appeals to the “Cour de Cassation”, that is, 21 August 2006°, the duration of the entire
procedure should be considered in relation to that date.
In total, local remedies procedure
therefore lasted from 13 December 1998 to 21 August 2006, that is, seven (7) years, eight
(8) months and ten (10) days.
106. In light of all the foregoing
frozen
between
2001
and
considerations, and although investigations were not
2006, the Court is of the opinion that the procedure
in the
domestic courts on the matter from 1998 and 2006, or nearly eight years, was unduly
prolonged in terms of article 56(5) of the Charter.
Moreover,
the procedure would
have been further prolonged
if the matter had been
brought to the “Cour de Cassation” by the Applicants regardless of the despatch with
which the “Cour de Cassation” would have disposed of the matter.
5 See on this same case, the Ruling of the Court on Preliminary Objections dated 21 June 2013, paragraph 118.
32
——