Regarding violation of the Applicants’ privilegés and immunities from being sued before court and from prosecution 38. The Defendant inquiry, and State that affirms none of the that it was Applicants carrying were out a preliminary remanded or held custody. That at the preliminary phase of the said inquiry, there question whatsoever court or from brought That prosecution; under at that brought of privileges house stage, or immunities from and that it is only when arrest that a judicial i.e. of a preliminary may sued to commence. if the justifications by the Applicants are sufficient, the Special definitively strike out the case, whereas is no the Applicants are procedure enquiry, being in Prosecutor shall it is only in:the contrary case that the Special Prosecutor shall transmit the case-file to the competent authority for legal proceedings to be instituted. Regarding violation of the principles of separation of powers and of constitutional convergence 39. The Defendant State stresses that the Applicants do not demonstrate to the Court that Senegal violated the,principle of separation of powers. They plead before the Court that the Anti Illegal-Wealth Court was never scrapped; that the! President of the Republic only made a Decree appointing members to the court; that the Decree did not create a new court since the said court was never removed from existence. 40. As to the alleged harassment claimed by the Applicants, the Defendant State affirms that the Applicants are under obligation to give account of. the management of the ministerial portfolios assigned them and the utilisation of public moneys thereof, in line with the tenets of all forms: of good governance. Regarding violation of the right to freedom of movement 41.The Defendant State application of this right, among them being affirms that regardless of the wide scope of it still comes under numerous exceptions, chief restrictions relating to the safeguarding of public order, public safety and public health. Relying on Article 12(1) and (2) of 13