155. The fourth weakness in this case is that after the Order to terminate proceedings against the principal accused in August 2006, the Respondent State pursued no further investigation, as if the matter had come to an end, whereas no suspect had been placed on trial and found guilty, and whereas in its own words, public action on the case would expire only in 2016. Due diligence would also have required that the Respondent should not abandon the search for those who murdered Norbert Zongo and his companions. 156. In view of all the aforementioned discrepancies, the Court finds that the Respondent had not acted with due diligence in seeking out, prosecuting and placing on trial those responsible for the murder of Norbert Zongo and his three companions. The Court notes, in consequence, that in that aspect, the Respondent State had violated the rights of the Applicants to have their case heard by competent national courts as guaranteed under article 7 of the Charter. 157. The Court, having made the finding that the Respondent has violated article 7 of the Charter, does not need to consider the allegations made Applicants pursuant to articles 2(3) and 14(1) of the ICCPR, Declaration of Human Rights. in the same vein by the or article 8 of the Universal . B) Allegation on the violation of the right to equal protection of the law and to equality before the law 158. The right to equal protection of the law and to equality before the law is guaranteed under article 3 of the Charter, which-states that: “1. Every individual shall be equal before the law. 2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law’. a4 De (Q- ve SI