1. Does Art 19.2 Const in particular and the right to a fair hearing in particular oblige the prosecution to furnish a list of witness, their statements…? 2. If the accused person is not entitled to the documents set out in question … does a failure to furnish them by the prosecution amounts to a contravention of Articles 19 and 28 of the Constitution? Conclusion: the two referral points may be answered in the following manner: 1. Art. 19.2c) of the Constitution oblige the prosecution to furnish the accused the evidence they have against him. 2. Deliberate denial of disclosure amounts to a contravention or likely contravention of article 19 of the Constitution. III. Case 5/1997 Philip Simeon, Walter Thelermont Versus Magistrates’ Court C, the Government of Seychelles, The Attorney General. Filled under Art 46.1 of the Constitution… that consequent to an order made by a Magistrate, the provisions of Art 18 and 25 have been contravened in relation to them. The two petitioners were brought before the Magistrate Court without warrant, upon a “Notice of Motion” and an affidavit from the officer who was investigating criminal charges against the two petitioners (both police inspectors). This Notice of Motion gave notice that prosecution would be move the Magistrate Court for an order preventing the petitioners from leaving the country as there were reasonable grounds to believe that they were making arrangements to leave. The two petitioners were there brought before the Magistrates Court not upon a summons or warrant, but upon a notice of motion, section 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In conclusion, the order made by the Learned Magistrate was inconsistent with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for Revision, however, though invalid do not contravene Art 25 of the Constitution as the petitioner has not shown the impounding of their passports prevented them form leaving the country in an specific occasion. Hence they were not personally affected to warrant this court to declare a Constitutional contravention. In any event the Audi Alteram Partem Rule had been followed. The petition being time barred, necessarily fails in limine and for the reasons stated above on merits as well. IV. Case 5/1998 Willy Charles Versus (The Attorney General representing) the Government of Seychelles Under article 46.1 of the Constitution, the petitioner alleges contravention of articles 16 and 18.2b)-3-5.