the holding of an extraordinary session to deal with the communication and added that the facts complained of by the Democratic Republic of Congo are also pending before the ICJ and that consideration of the communication by the [African] Commission would prejudice the court hearing. 46. At the 31st Session of the [African] Commission, which was held from 2nd to 16th May 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa, the [African] Commission did not consider the communication because there had been no response from the OAU regarding the request from the Democratic Republic of Congo on the holding of the extraordinary session on the communication. During that session, the [African] Commission resolved to proceed as follows: the African Commission would hold the extraordinary session in case the Secretariat General of the OAU agree[d] to it, or (in case the OAU did not accept the idea of extraordinary session), the African Commission would arrange its agenda for the 32nd Ordinary Session in such a way as to have sufficient time to deal with the communication. That decision was communicated to the delegations of all the States concerned who were attending the session. 47. By Note Verbale ACHPR/COMM 227/99 of 11 June 2002, the Secretariat transmitted that decision to the States concerned by the communication. 48. A reminder was also sent to the same States by Notes Verbale ACHPR/COMM 227/99 on 8th October 2002. 49. During its 32nd Ordinary Session which took place from 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, the Gambia, the [African] Commission did not consider this communication because of the circumstances of the session1 which did not provide enough time to deal with this important communication. 50. The [African] Commission took a decision on the merits of the communication during its 33rd Ordinary Session, which was held from 15th to 29th May 2003 in Niamey, Niger. Law Admissibility 51. The procedure for bringing inter-state communications before the [African] Commission is governed by Articles 47 to 49 of the Charter. At this stage, it is important to mention that this is the first inter-State communication brought before the African Commission. 52. It is to be noted that Burundi2 , a Respondent State was provided with all the relevant submissions relating to this communication, in conformity with Article 57 of the Charter. But neither did Burundi react to any of them nor did it make any oral submission before the [African] Commission regarding the complaint. 53. The African Commission would like to emphasise that the absence of reaction from Burundi does not absolve the latter from the decision the African Commission may arrive at in the consideration of the communication. Burundi by ratifying the African Charter indicated its commitment to cooperate with the [African] Commission and to abide by all decisions taken by the latter. 54. In their oral arguments before the [African] Commission at its 27th Ordinary Session held in Algeria (27th April to 11th May 2000), Rwanda and Uganda had argued that the decision of the Complainant State to submit the communication directly to the Chairman of the [African] Commission without first notifying them and the Secretary General of the OAU, is procedurally wrong and therefore fatal to the admissibility of the case. 55. Article 47 requires the Complainant State to draw, by written communication, the attention of the violating State to the matter and the communication should also be addressed to the Secretary General of the OAU and the Chairman of the [African] Commission. The State to which the communication is addressed is to give written explanation or statement elucidating the matter within three months of the receipt of the communication. 56. By the provisions of Article 48 of the Charter, if within three months from the date on which the original communication is received by the State to which it is addressed, the issue is not settled to the satisfaction of the two States involved through bilateral negotiation or by any other peaceful procedure, either State shall have the right to submit the matter to the [African] Commission through the Chairman and to notify the other States involved. 57. The provisions of Articles 47 and 48, read in conjunction with Rule 88 to Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure of the [African] Commission are geared towards the achievement of one of the essential objectives and fundamental principles of the Charter: conciliation. 58. The [African] Commission is of the view that the procedure outlined in Article 48 of the Charter is permissive and not mandatory. This is borne out by the use of the word "may". Witness the first sentence of 6