··36..·The Republic of Togo concludes that once no court decision has been made declaring that its law-enforcement agents were responsible for the acts complained of by the Applicants, the Honourable Court cannot lay blame on the Republic Togo for the alleged violations or ask the Republic of Togo to fulfill the requests for reparation sought by the Applicants. Analysis of the Court Regarding allegations of torture and human rights violations which may have resulted from acts of violence, and related requests 37. Within the circumstances of the instant case, the Court is of the view that it should have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter only if, first and foremost, there were sufficient factors which· enable it to conclude that the Republic of Togo was liable for the charges brought, and of such a nature as to render the Republic of Togo internationally liable. But, it is incontrovertible, that the objective of the proceedings instituted before the Togolese courts is to look for, identify and punish the masterminds of the criminal acts of violence and torture; and the court proceedings are still pending. 38.As thing stand, the·court may not make finding concerning the criminal nature of the charges brought, or ascribe any blame whatsoever against the Republic of Togo, without unduly interfering in the conduct of the proceedings pending at the national level, and without violating the freedom of the judge at the domestic court. 39. Furthermore, even though the Court is entrusted with . the duty to establish the facts, the Court is nevertheless of the view that for it to set that mandate in motion, consideration must be given to the pragmatic approach whereby appropriate importance is accorded to the proximity - between the charges made and the judge at the domestic court, just as the same importance must be given to the prerogatives of the judge at the domestic court. 40. The Court finds that it is not within its human rights protection mandate to substitute its own viewpoint on the facts of a case for that of the domestic courts seized with the same case, in terms of determining the authenticity of certain exhibits pleaded in relation to charges of a 11