week, the refusal to allow a lawyer to assist the Applicant’s representative before the special parliamentary committee, occurred in the context of the procedure of the consideration by the Togolese National Assembly of the application for waiver of the Applicant’s parliamentary immunity. It is not a judicial proceeding, much less a proceeding designed to decide on the merits of the criminal charge against the Applicant. 180. It is common ground that the procedure for waiver of parliamentary immunity in the Togolese Republic enshrines the right to a hearing of the accused person, a right he may exercise in person or through representation by another colleague. (See Article 79 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Togolese National Assembly), and the Applicant opted to be represented by another colleague and admits that he was summoned to such a hearing. Representation by a lawyer is not provided for. 181. The Court does not exclude that this right may become ineffective if the Member prosecuted or the colleague representing him in the proceedings to waive immunity has not had access to the material of the proceedings or is, in one way or another, deprived of the right or opportunity to be heard. However, in the instant case, the Applicant has not proved that the facts he denounces had the effect of vitiating the procedure for waiving his immunity, with a refusal to hear him, in violation of the guarantees enshrined in the applicable law. 183. In this sense the Court finds that the allegations of violation of the Applicant’s rights, based on the non-disclosure of the USB key, the refusal to postpone the hearing within one week or to allow his representative to be assisted by a lawyer, are unfounded, and consequently considers that the Applicant’s claim, in this part, is unfounded. 47