26. Whereas it is established from the duly signed attestations, pleaded as “acts of renunciation of any further claim”, under the exhibits of the case-file, that the Applicants, except the said training personnel, had acknowledged that they were totally settled before they made such “renunciation of any further claim” from the Sierra Leone Government. 27. Whereas the acknowledgment of that definitive settlement is clearly mentioned in the Initiating Application dated 2 June 2014 (see paragraphs 19 and 20), even if the Applicants plead further on, without supporting evidence, that they were coerced to establish and sign the said attestations. 28. The Court equally notes that the diligent efforts made by the judicial authorities of Sierra Leone to resolve the dispute among the parties, pursuant to the Sierra Leone High Court Decision of 17 August 2015, which upheld the entitlements due the trainers of Sierra National Airlines who were absorbed by Sierra Leone Airport Authority. 29. Whereas moreover, the said judicial decision, like the one which was dated 21 October 2011 and ordering the judicial liquidation of Sierra National Airlines, is inconsistent with the complaint made by the Applicants, according to which the Sierra Leone judiciary is incapable of rendering a fair judgment in reasonable time. Going by that assertion, it becomes worthy to recall that it was not until 2012 that the Applicants lodged the case in question for the first time before the Sierra Leone judiciary, and less than two years after, on 30 June 2014, to be precise, they brought the matter before the ECOWAS Court of Justice. 30. In sum, it is imperative to notice that the complaints deriving from violation of the socio-economic rights of the Applicants or from their right to fair trial – that their cause be heard in reasonable time or that they work under satisfactory conditions, are neither relevant nor buttressed by concrete and convincing evidence. 10