Judgment No. CCZ 1/2014 6 Const. Application No. SC 240/2010 Mr Mutangadura argued that what was required of the applicants was the raising of a question of a contravention of the Declaration of Rights and a request that the presiding magistrate refer the question to the Supreme Court for determination. In this case, the question was raised before the magistrate at the initial remand without a request that it be referred to the Supreme Court for determination. Once the decision to remand the applicants was made on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion of their having committed the offences with which they were charged, and that position still prevailed at the time they appeared in the High Court for trial, the prosecution could not be stopped on the basis that they had been tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. There was no legal basis on which the trial judge could refer the questions of contraventions of ss 13(1), 15(1) and 18(1) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for determination under s 24(2) because the question of the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicants having committed the offences with which they were charged had already been determined justifying their arraignment before the High Court. The High Court could not turn the proceedings before it into an inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Magistrates Court to place the applicants on remand. It could not seek to have the correctness of that decision impugned through the procedure under s 24(2) of the Constitution because the Supreme Court would no longer be exercising original jurisdiction in the circumstances. The court would not be determining the question of violation of the right to personal liberty but reviewing the decision of the Magistrates Court.