this, it invokes Article 1 of the Ivorian Constitution which provides that: "The State of Côte d'Ivoire recognizes the fundamental liberties, rights and duties as enshrined in the present Constitution and shall take Legislative Measures and Regulations to ensure their effective application" and concluded that, owing to the constitutional principles thus stated, and the facts of the case, the grievances invoked by the Plaintiffs seem not serious. 28. The State of Côte d'Ivoire considers groundless the Plaintiffs' argument, by which they aver that the media portrayed them guilty, and therefore this could be a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence. For, in as much as Articles 19 × Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 8 and 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and 9 and 10 of the New Ivorian Constitution of 2000 recognise the freedom of the press, the State has an obligation to guarantee such a freedom and to ensure that journalists perform their duty of informing the citizens satisfactorily, and without any hindrance. However, since they are free and autonomous corporate bodies, the media must account their own actions. 29. The State of Côte d'Ivoire also invokes Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides that: "none shall have his honour and reputation infringed upon. Every individual has the right under the law, to be protected against...such infringement". It considers the plaintiffs' allegation relating to an infringement to their honour and reputation as vague, and not backed by any objective proof, since the acts imputed to the State of Côte d'Ivoire are sequel to a judicial enquiry that its Court initiated owing to penal offence, of which Plaintiffs are accused. 30. It adds that, when there are serious penal offences, which are likely to disturb public peace, it is the duty of the State Prosecutor to initiate proceedings and to inform both the national and international communities on the nature of the said proceedings and probable counts. It is the responsibility of the State to administer justice on its territory and to ensure that judicial procedure is adhered to in accordance with the law. 31. Also, the Defendant State equally considers groundless the Plaintiffs' argument against the State Prosecutor, relating to their preventive detention, which, according to them, was unjustified, simply because that judicial authority has not justified his action, whereas they all present guarantees of legal representation, and that they have always answered summons of the investigators and the Trial Judge. 32. It avers that the preventive detention is indeed, not only a means of ensuring the representation of the indicted person before the law, it is also a means of preserving the sanctity of the materials or indices which could serve as exhibits to the offence, of preventing an influence on the likely witnesses or a fraudulent deal between the indicted persons and their accomplices, of maintaining public peace and order and of protecting the indicted persons themselves against acts of retaliation from the aggrieved public. 33. That in the instant case, and owing to the weight of the acts relating to embezzlement of huge amounts of money from the cocoa and coffee funds, and with a resolve to establish transparency and good governance, it was necessary to take measures that could ensure the maintenance of public law and order, and the safeguard of the national economy. The preventive detention of the Plaintiffs is thus justified. 34. Moreover, the Defendant State believes that the Plaintiffs' argument relating to their inability to participate, efficiently and with confidence, in the ongoing audit exercise, owing to their detention does not reflect the true situation of the facts, and shows their limit knowledge of the administration of justice in their own country. 35. Indeed, Articles 112, 113 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure guarantee the rights of the indicted persons before the Trial Judge. In the instant case, it can never be denied, except otherwise and with proof, that all the indicted persons, within the framework of this procedure, were interrogated in the presence of their counsel. Moreover, all the Orders given by the Trial Judge, in accordance with the above quoted texts, are subject to appeal, once they were notified on the indicted persons. 36. Furthermore, the audit exercise in question is the responsibility of experts, and it must be carried out, pursuant to Articles 156 and others, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Agreed, such expert accounting audit exercises are carried out generally without the indicted persons being present, yet the ensuing report is necessarily communicated to them for their consideration and, probably a request for a counter expert exercise. All said and done, such expert accounting audit exercises are carried out in conformity with the spirit of a fair hearing, and no violation of such a principle could be alleged against the Defendant State. 5