other hand, the complainants assert that “the lawyer is obviously never bound by the contents of a statement of defence deposited before the hearing. Such a statement therefore is not exhaustive and may only be confined to certain aspects of the case and not focus on issues that the defence intends to elaborate on later at the bar. Counsel for the defence may also renounce certain arguments contained in his note, depending on for instance the issues raised by the prosecution. This freedom is at the very core of the rights of the defence. Before any decision, they assert, there is the unconditional right to oral submissions and freedom of speech” . 10. The Complainants assert that this same freedom of speech was accorded to the prosecution, and recall that the “prosecutor is never bound by the written closing speeches of his office.” The principle is furthermore established by the old saying that “the written word is not, as free as the spoken word”. They vehemently assert, that in indicating in its judgement that the lawyer had already submitted a 19page statement of defence and that in this respect, he had accomplished all the fundamental duties of a lawyer”, the Court ignores all the principles that have just been set forth and, consequently, authorises a blatant violation of the rights of the defence in general and the rights of judicial assistance in particular”. 11. On the basis of the foregoing, the Complainant whilst stressing that the aim of the present complaint is to highlight the above-mentioned violations, call on the Commission to rule that: 1. By refusing Mr Gaetan Bwampamye the assistance of his legal counsel to plead his case, the Criminal Chamber of the Ngozi Court of Appeal held a hearing which was not equitable under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and all the relevant international instruments. 2. To establish the violation by the Republic of Burundi of the rights enshrined in the Charter more specifically, the violation of of the Charter and the general principles on the rights of the defence; 3. To report its findings to the parties concerned and to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU. Procedure th 12. The communication is dated 11 April 1999. It was sent to the Secretariat by E-mail. 13. On account of the fact that the judgement of the Ngozi Court of Appeal (a major piece written in Kirundi) was still being translated, the communication could not be brought before the Commission th during its 25 h Ordinary Session held in Bujumbura, in May 1999. Towards the end of the said Session however, the plaintiffs forwarded to the Secretariat the outstanding documents, thus enabling th it to complete the file on the communication and bring the matter before the 26 Session of the Commission. th 14. At its 26 Session, the Commission heard from the representatives of Mr Bwampamye who had come to present their position on the matter. After a long debate, the Commission reached a decision to be seized of the communication. Mr Bwampamye was represented by the following lawyers: Segatwa Fabien, Seydou Doumbia and Boubine Toure (all of them being members of Avocats Sans Frontières. th 15. On 13 December 1999, the Secretariat informed the parties of this decision and a letter signed by the Chairman of the Commission, requesting a stay of execution was addressed to the Burundian Head of State. th 16. On 15 February 2000, the Burundi office of Avocats Sans Frontières acknowledged receipt of th the letter of 13 December 1999, addressed to it by the Secretariat without, however, communicating its observations as regards the admissibility of the communication. th 17. At its 27 Ordinary Session held in Algiers, Algeria, the Commission examined the case and declared it admissible and requested the parties to furnish it with arguments on its merits. It also requested the Chairman of the Commission to repeat its earlier appeal for stay of execution pending the determination of the communication. st 18. The above decision was communicated to parties on 1 August 2000.