criminal nature. This issue would have been completely different if the
question before the Court were to be limited to determining the fairness
of the entire procedure which may have been employed at the national
level.
41. In the instant case, the Court is of the view that the judge at the
domestic court, before which the case is filed, shall examine the charges
made in the complaints which are lodged before him.
42. Consequently, the Court adjudges that the application asking the Court
for a declaration on the alleged human rights violations, arising from
acts purported to have been perpetrated and attributed to the lawenforcement agencies and security forces of the Republic of Togo,
is premature; and that it is ripe and appropriate therefore to declare
that the allegations
and requests made thereto are inadmissible as
things stand, since the procedures are still pending before the domestic
courts.
B. CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL IN REASONABLE TIME
1. Arguments of the Applicants
1.1. Arguments of Aziagbede Kokou and 34 Others
43.-The- Applicants ·allege that ·after the events of 2005,. with the ·assistance
of Coalition of Associations Against Impunity in Togo (CACIT), they filed a
case before the Doyen of investigating judges at the Court of First
Instance of Lome, with complaints against the Republic of Togo, asking
that a trial be instituted on the charges brought, for which they were
victims. They further contend that
,
since 13 October 2006 and 26
October 2010, the dates on which their complaints were lodged, none of
them had been called for the hearing of the case, despite the numerous
steps taken by the lawyers of CACIT and the constant monitoring of the
-
case by CACIT. They state that it has been six (6) years since most of the
compl_aints were lodged, while for others, one (1) year has lapsed, since
the case was filed before the court. They therefore affirm that under
such circumstances, it can be said that the complaints have fallen victim
to intentional bureaucratic blockades contrived by the Judiciary.
44. They maintain therefore that the resultant effect of this state of affairs ,is a
violation of Article 19 of the 14 October 1992 Constitution of Togo,·
12