considered earlier while examining the Applicant's claim that the investigation was improper and insufficient. The finding made earlier applies to the allegation of "presumption of guill". 117. With respect to the allegation that he was treated with suspicion, the Court notes that the Applicant does not adduce any evidence to support the claim. Regarding the allegation that the Applicant was handed over to the police before investigations were completed, the Court is of the view that in certain circumstances, including where a person is being accused of committing murder, movement may be restricted once investigations are commenced. These are generally known as measures that are implemented to either protect the suspect prevent him or her from tampering with vital evidence or escaping. The Court however recalls that, in such cases, the restriction imposed must always be done under the law, which the Applicant does not challenge in the instant case. 118. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the allegation of violation of the right to be presumed innocent protected under Article 7(1 )(b) of the Charter. iv. The right to be tried within a reasonable time 119. The Applicant alleges that he was convicted in 2010 after being arrested in October 2005 and that this undue delay infringed his right to be tried within a reasonable time. In his oral submissions, the Applicant avers that the process of nolle prosequi entered by the State Attorney, on account of mistakes in terms of procedure, almost two (2) years after he was first charged violates his right to be tried without undue delay. 120. The Respondent State does not address this allegation in its written pleadings and did not respond to the submissions made by the Applicant on the same issue during the public hearing. ..* 30