The stipulation of a time limit is mandatory and it begins to run from the date of the alleged contravention. However it must not be applied as an instrument to defeat the exercise of a fundamental right if circumstance exists for the application of the principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The detention of a person in communicado is one such obvious circumstances. The petition has been filed on time. The respondent may therefore file a defence on the petition on merits. I.1 Case 10/1999 Noella Lajoie Versus the Government of Seychelles, the Attorney General The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Art 46.1 of the Constitution alleging contravention of article 18.3 and 18.5 thereof. The State admits that the petitioner was produced in court 38 hours after being arrested upon a complaint of stealing by servant. The State has discharged the burden accordingly to article 18.3. The State has failed to discharge the burden on article 46.8 and accordingly there has been a contravention of article 18.5 of the Constitution. In the present case I would consider a sum of RS 5000 to be adequate to compensate the petitioner as an acknowledgment of regret by the State for the failure of its officers to comply with a Constitutional time limit II. Case 2/1998 The Republic Versus Bernard Georges. Bernard Georges stands charged with five counts. He has pleaded not guilty to all the counts levelled against him. The defence deplored that in spite of several requests made to the prosecution, it had failed to furnish the defence with a list of prosecution witnesses and their statements. Hence the accused was unable to prepare his defence. The defendant is seeking that Court’s redress for an alleged contravention by the Republic therein of the provisions of the Seychellois Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, namely the rights in Articles 19 and 28 thereof. Questions for the determination of this Court: