48. The Republic :of "Togo further contends that in· line with the procedure .._ practised in Togo, the fixing of the amount to be paid as guarantee fee is preceded by the formality which confirms the complaint before the investigating judge; and the Republic of Togo asks whether the Applicants have fulfilled the said formality, and that at any rate, evidence must be provided to that effect. 49. The Republic of Togo thus maintains that the failure of the investigating judge to sit or his failure to adjudicate at a speed convenient to the Applicants may not be attributable to the Republic of Togo, since the latter, in line with the constitutional principles, cannot interfere with the work of the trial judge. 50. The Republic of Togo further contends that any proven default on the part of a judge seized with "a case entitles a complainant to initiate an action against the judge concerned so as to bring disciplinary procedure against him pursuant to Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Constitutive Law No. 96-11of 21 August 1996 on the Status of Judges. It further affirms that an inspectorate division of the judicial services exists for the purpose of helping litigants bring cases against unscrupulous judges, in procedures which resulted in the implementation of the above-mentioned decision. · . ( 51. The Republic of Togo concludes that unless the Applicants produce evidence to prove that they have explored those avenues without success, the Honourable Court may fit]d that there are mechanisms for addressing the Applicants' complaints at the local level, and that if they have had no satisfaction for their complaints, it is not as a result of any fault of the Republic of Togo, but due to the Applicants' own fault. Analysis of the Court Regarding allegation of the right to be tried in reasonable time 52. The Court notes that the Applicants, who allege violation of the right to be tried in reasonable time, have all filed complaints and constituted civil parties before the investigating judges of Togo. 14 --- I