199. In this regard, the Court has already found that the Respondent State violated article 7 of the Charter, as it had not shown due diligence to seek out, investigate, prosecute and put to trial the killers of Norbert Zongo and his companions (supra, paragraph 156). The Court notes that, by so doing, the Respondent State simultaneously violated article 1 of the Charter, by failing to take appropriate legal measures to guarantee respect for the rights of the Applicants in terms of article 7 of the Charter. E) The issue of damages 200. In their written submissions, the Applicants prayed the Court to hold the Respondent liable to a series of damages to be quantified by the Court itself (supra, paragraph 45). 201. In its Response on the merits and during the Public Hearing of 28 and 29 November 2014, the Respondent State, for its part, prayed the Court to reject all the claims for damages filed by the Applicants (supra, paragraph 45). | 202. Before taking a decision on the prayers in respect of damages, the Court had opted, in application of Rule 63 of its Rules, to first rule on the various allegations of violation of the Charter made by the Applicants. The Court, having now ruled on all said allegations, shall decide on the damages ata later stage in the proceedings, after having heard the parties more extensively. 203. In view of the foregoing, THE COURT, 1. unanimously Declares that it has jurisdiction to hear the application, except in relation to the allegation of violation of the right to life; 2. Overrules the Respondent’s objection to the admissibility of the application on the grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies; and declares the application admissible; 3. Finds that the Respondent State has violated article 7 of the Charter as well as article 1 of the Charter, concerning the obligation to adopt measures, other than o- legislative measures; l 54 Ar \