29. On 17th February 2015, the Commission issued the Provisional Measures request by the Complainant. The Respondent State and the Complainant by Note Verbale and letter dated 4th March 2015 were duly informed. 30. On 13th April 2014, the Commission received a response from the Respondent State alleging among other things that the Provisional Measures were issued without merit. 31. On 17th April 2015, the Secretariat received a letter from the Complainants alleging the violation of the Provisional Measures on 17th February 2015 and new evidence relating to continuing violations. The Commission acknowledged the letter on 3rd December 2014. 32. On 14th May 2015, the Secretariat updated the Complainants and the Respondent State on the status of the Communication by way of a letter and a Note Verbale respectively post-Se= Ordinary Session. 33. The Secretariat transmitted the Admissibility decision via a letter and Note Verbale dated 16th October 2015 to the Complainants and the Respondent State respectively. 34. On 25th November 2015, the Secretariat updated both the Complainants and the Respondent State via a letter and Note Verbale respectively after the 57th Ordinary Session. Provisional Measures 35. In accordance with Rule 98 of the 2010 Rules of Procedure of the Commission (2010 ROP), the Complainants filed a request for Provisional Measures relying on allegations that irreparable harm was being done to the Victims, specifically, Bedru Husain Nur Husain and Ahmed Mustefa Habib, both of whom continue to be allegedly subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment while in detention. Provisional Measures was issued by the Commission on 17th February 2015 requesting the Respondent State to: (i) fully investigates the circumstances of these allegations of the 29 prisoners specifically, the two Victims, Bedru Husain Nur-Husain and Ahmed Mustefa Habib who continue to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; (ii) guarantee the client-attorney confidentiality privilege by ensuring that the Victim's lawyers conversation with the Victims are not monitored and their documents are not confiscated without following due process; and (iii) observe the right of the Victims to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and also refrain from making prejudicial statements including in mass media since it may undermine their fair trial process. 36. The Respondent State, however, contested the issuance of Provisional Measures alleging that it was issued without merit. The Complainants subsequently wrote back to the Commission alleging the violation of the Provisional Measures issued by the Commission. --=.'~ 6"'~, 37. The Complainants requested the Commission to among other things refer the issue-to, /J '\_ the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court). The fiphunission <t<J th considered the Complainants' request during the 56 Ordinary Sessio dirfct~;l ~~ r :1\ • :J ~ '6 ~ -.l ~~.5'.s ( IUN 4"Rt(.p..\~ ~;: fc,,,>'-v~~,(,.// -'v /;1 . \" )toAfME E' 1)("', "