which took place from 24 April to 14 May 2019, to a later session. The Secretariat also indicated that the extended deadline for the Respondent's written submissions on the merits had expired on 14 April 2019, and therefore it was no longer possible for the Respondent State to make submissions on the merits of the Communication. 33. On 30 October 2020, the Secretariat received a correspondence from the Respondent State requesting that the Secretariat furnish a detailed reference of the Communication. On 16 November 2020, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt and indicated the Note Verbales earlier transmitted to the Respondent State. 34. A decision on the merits was deferred from the 65th Ordinary Session to 31st Extra-ordinary Session of the Commission. Determination on the Preliminary Objection 35. The Complainant in its additional observations on the admissibility submissions of the Respondent State raised a preliminary objection to the permissibility of the Respondent State's admissibility submissions. The assertion of the Complainant is that in accordance with Rule 103(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, submissions should be made within two months, but that the State only submitted on admissibility five months after this deadline had expired. The Complainant submits that this is an abuse of process and that the State's submissions on admissibility should not be considered. 36. The Commission considered this objection, and determined that in line with its the current practice, where the Communication is still pending before the Commission for w hatever reason, and the State submits, even if it is outside of the provided time limits, that it would view this as an indication of political will on the side of the State to participate in the Communications process, and that the submissions would be allowed. Contrarily, where a State is out of time to submit, and the Commission had already proceeded to make a determination on the said Communication, the submissions of the State would not be considered. In the current case the Respondent State submitted some months outside of the given timeframe, however, since the Commission had not yet made a determination on admissibility at that point, this would not result in the Commission disregarding the State's submissions on admissibility. 37. This allowance is made on the basis of the view of the Commission that, firstly, it is in the interest of justice to hear the versions of both Parties to the Communication. Secondly, as seen from t ~=;;..,;:.:::~ he decisions of the age States in the Commission, the Commission has in the iates efforts by Communications process, and the Co 5 . .:; c,, 0:, , (, "v .q ·RIC. p.ll'l~ ,l" ~l\!1,a:-F1 o~st ~ / • 71 P age