The Court finds compliance with all the elements of Article 7 of the ACHPR and holds that the Applicants have not established a violation of their right to fair hearing. Right to privacy. 56. It is the contention of the Applicants that the petitioner and his agents secretly filmed and recorded conversations of the Applicants and indeed other judges, magistrate and other judicial service staff. These secret filming and recordings were either done in the Judges or Magistrates or court staff residences, office chambers or other private locations. In the case of the 1st and 3rd Applicants herein, the secret filming and recordings were done at their residences while the 2nd Applicant was at his office chambers. The Applicants further contend that the collection and retention of the said conversations in the form of audio-visuals and transcripts thereof by the petitioner, which were subsequently used as evidence to support their removal amounts to interference with their privacy. 57. In further support of their allegation of violation of their right to privacy, the applicant averred that the Data Protection Act of Ghana (Act 843) is the primary legislation which regulates the collection and retention of personal data and provides for the registration with the Data Protection Commission of any data controller who intends to process personal data. While recognizing that interference with an individual’s right to privacy is only justifiable if done lawfully and/or not arbitrarily, they argued that Tiger Eye PI not being a registered company and therefore unknown to law cannot be said to have conducted a lawful investigation and therefore not been in accordance with Law is a violation of their right to privacy. 58. It is the further contention of the Applicants that though the Supreme Court’s decision dated 16th December, 2015, found the Chief Justice, the Respondent, and Tiger Eye PI and Anas Aremeyaw Anas in violation of the privacy requirement of the impeachment proceedings by publishing the identity of the indicted judges (including the Applicants), the content and evidence in support of the petition; nevertheless, it ruled that the violation did not affect the validity of the petition, rather opined that a suit for an award of damages is an appropriate remedy. This they also content is a violation of their right to fair hearing. They conclude that 20