compensation freedom for the violation of expression to be of their father’s quantified human at the rights appropriate to stage lite and in the proceedings. 5. An order that the defendant pay the applicants’ costs of this action, in accordance with Article 66 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The defence In a statement of defence filed on 18 September 2012, the Defendant rejected the entire claim by the plaintiffs. In particular the Defendant made the following material averments. That they carried out effective and diligent investigations into the murder of Deyda Hydara. That the deceased did not make any disclosure to the State about any threats to his life, let alone to seek protection from the State. The Defendant denied contributing in any way to the death of Hydara, for contrary to what the plaintiffs averred, the Defendant did not tolerate any culture or climate of impunity in the country. The killers are still at large and they are still unknown. The State owes no obligation to provide redress to the plaintiffs for the murder of Deyda Hydara, the defence averred. Consideration by the court The pleadings as well as both counsels’ addresses have been taken into account in the ensuing consideration of the case by the court. The application is based on the ACHPR, in large measure, Articles 1, 4 and 9 thereof. These read: 1 The Member States ......parties duties and freedoms enshrined to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, in the Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to’them. 4 Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 9 (i) Every individual shall have the right to receive information.