8. The Press Conference by the State Prosecutor was followed by the publication in the Newspapers of the nominal roll, together with pictures of the indicted officials, amongst whom are the plaintiffs. On the front page of the Government owned Daily "Farternite Matin", apart from the nominal roll of the indicted persons, there was this bold caption "Heads shall roll". The Plaintiffs were thus subjected to a media lynching by public opinion which condemned them before an eventual trial. 9. On 16th July, 2008, the Doyen of the Trial Judges appointed, by Order, two Experts, requesting them to carry out a Financial Audit in all the Institutions of the sector, which are: the FGCCC, the BCC, the ARCC, the FDPCC and the FRC. 10. On 14th August, 2008, during its Meeting, the Council of Ministers in Côte d'Ivoire authorized the Doyen of the Trial Judges to interrogate five Members of the Government. They were so interrogated during the month of October 2008. 11. The Plaintiffs believed that in handling the case, the Ivorian Judicial and Political Authorities have seriously violated five series human rights. As to the Law II. Arguments of the Plaintiffs 12. In support of their Application, the Plaintiffs invoke Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, according to the law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." 13. They aver that the indictment is not a condemnation, and does not establish, in any manner whatsoever, the guilt of the persons who are investigated. So, it was wrong for some national media, especially the State owned Television to have labelled "presumed guilty", while referring to the indicted persons in the coffee/cocoa case. 14. They also invoked Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides, in a peremptory manner that: "none shall have his honour and reputation infringed upon. Every individual has the right, under the law, to be protected against ...such infringement". Whereas, for several months, high ranking officials of the sector, including the Plaintiffs, are severally portrayed as criminals, "thieves who stole billions" by the press, as well as some Judicial Authorities and certain political authorities. 15. The Plaintiffs affirm that, since they were only placed in preventive detention, they are to be presumed innocent, but the portrayal made of them was done in a way as to infringe seriously upon their honour and reputation. This constitutes intolerable violation of their rights. 16. In addition, the Applicants invoked Article 137 of the Ivorian Code of Criminal Procedure which provides on the one hand that: "Freedom is of right", and on the other hand that: "Preventive Detention is an Exceptional Measure", before questioning the rationale behind the detention of the Plaintiffs. They observe that this provision rightly affirms the presumption of innocence, in a way that, for an individual whose culpability is yet to be determined, must enjoy a provisional freedom. That the Judicial Authorities should also have observed the strict respect for the presumption of innocence, since the Plaintiffs are presenting all the guarantees of representation and they have voluntarily been responding to the summons from both the police and the Trial Judge. 17. But, to justify their refusal to grant the Plaintiffs' request for provisional release, the Judicial Authorities aver that "their detention remains a necessity for the manifestation of the truth" or that the investigation is still ongoing, thus keeping the Plaintiffs behind bars for the past seven months. And that, in these conditions, it then follows that, for these vague and non precise reasons, the preventive detention of the Plaintiffs could be likened to an arbitrary arrest. 18. Thus, the Applicants invoke Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that: "None shall be detained arbitrarily" They claim that the arbitrary detention of the Plaintiffs results from their unjustified preventive detention, both constituting not only a violation of the Universal Declaration that are confirmed by the Ivorian Constitution itself, but also, they are likely to infringe upon their right to a fair hearing. 3