See also BAKARY SARRE & 28 ORS V. THE REPUBLIC OF MALI (2011) ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11 pg. 70, Para 33 & El Haji Mame Abdou Gaye v. Republic of Senegal ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/12 at Para 28 and 46. This Court therefore declares that it has jurisdiction to entertain the instant application by the Applicants. WHETHER THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AS ALLEGED: 49. The Applicants alleged that the Respondent violated their rights to fair hearing, privacy, work and equality before the law. The Court will now analyze each right seriatim to find whether there is violation as alleged or otherwise. Right to Fair Hearing. 50. The Applicants alleged that their right to fair hearing has been violated by the Respondent contrary to Art 10 of the UDHR, 14(1) 0f the ICCPR and 7(1) of the ACHPR. Their case is that on receipt of the petition submitted by Tiger Eye PI on the 10th September, 2015 seeking their removal from office as Justices of the Superior Court, they challenged same by instituting various actions in the national courts. Whilst still pending, the Judicial Council of Ghana purportedly met on 16th December, 2015 and without inviting the Applicants or provide an opportunity to be heard, decided to suspend the Applicants, and place them on half of their monthly salary while all allowances save housing rent were suspended. They further alleged that the uncertainty as to the identity of their accuser is a violation of their right to fair hearing, contending that the petitioner on one hand is known as Tiger Eye PI and as Anas Aremeyaw Anas on the other hand. Furthermore upon challenging the inconsistency, the Supreme Court’s decisions were incongruent and that the facts above led credence to the violation of their right to fair hearing contrary to the above referred human rights instruments. 51. The Respondent on the other hand whilst admitting that the right to a fair hearing is inalienable contend that nothing in the Applicants’ entire complaint amounts to a denial of the right to just and fair treatment in the administrative decision making process. The 1st Applicant refused or failed to respond to the letter 17