this provision: "If a State Party to the Present Charter has good reasons to believe that another State Party to this Charter has violated the provisions of the Charter, it may draw, by written communication, the attention of that State to the matter". 59. Moreover, where the dispute is not settled amicably, Article 48 of the Charter requires either State to submit the matter to the [African] Commission through the Chairman and to notify the other States involved. It does not, however, provide for its submission to the Secretary General of the OAU. Nevertheless, based on the decision of the [African] Commission at its 25th Ordinary Session, requesting it to forward a copy of its complaint to the Secretary General of the OAU (see paragraph 14 above), the Complainant State had done so. 60. Furthermore, it appears that the main reason why the Charter makes provision for the Respondent State to be informed of such violations or notified of the submission of such a communication to the [African] Commission, is to avoid a situation of springing surprises on the States involved. This procedure enables the Respondent States to decide whether to settle the complaint amicably or not. The [African] Commission is of the view that even if the Complainant State had not abided by the said provision of the Charter, such omission is not fatal to the communication since after being seized of the case, a copy of the communication, as is the practice of the [African] Commission, was forwarded to the Respondent States for their observations (see paragraph 15 above). 61. Article 49 on the other hand, provides for a procedure where the Complainant State directly seizes the [African] Commission without passing through the conciliation phase. Accordingly, the Complainant State may refer the matter directly to the [African] Commission by addressing a communication to the Chairman, the Secretary General of the OAU and the State concerned. Such a process allows the requesting State to avoid making contacts with the Respondent State in cases where such contacts will not be diplomatically either effective or desirable. In the [African] Commission's considered opinion that seems to be the case here. Indeed, the situation of undeclared war prevailing between the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighbours to the east did not favour the type of diplomatic contact that would have facilitated the application of the provisions of Articles 47 and 48 of the [African] Charter. It was also for this reason that the [African] Commission took the view that Article 52 did not apply to this communication. 62. The [African] Commission is mindful of the requirement that it can consider or deal with a matter brought before it if the provisions of Article 50 of the Charter and 97(c) of the Rules of Procedure are met, that is if all local remedies, if they exist, have been exhausted, unless such would be unduly prolonged. 63. The [African] Commission takes note that the violations complained of are allegedly being perpetrated by the Respondent States in the territory of the Complainant State. In the circumstances, the [African] Commission finds that local remedies do not exist, and the question of their exhaustion does not, therefore, arise. 64. The effect of the alleged activities of the rebels and armed forces of the Respondent State Parties to the Charter, which also back the rebels, fall not only within the province of humanitarian law, but also within the mandate of the [African] Commission. The combined effect of Articles 60 and 61 of the [African] Charter compels this conclusion; and it is also buttressed by Article 23 of the African Charter. 65. There is also authority, which does not exclude violations committed during armed conflict from the jurisdiction of the [African] Commission. In communication 74/92 Commission nationale des droits de l'Homme et des libertés, the [African] Commission held that the African Charter "unlike other human rights instruments, does not allow for States Parties to derogate from their treaty obligations during emergency situations. Thus, even a situation of ....war...cannot be cited as justification by the State violating or permitting violations of the African Charter" (see also 159/96 UIDH et al. / Angola). From the foregoing, the [African] Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits 66. The use of armed force by the Respondent States, which the Democratic Republic of Congo complains of, contravenes the well-established principle of international law that States shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. Indeed, there cannot be both national and international peace and security guaranteed by the African Charter under the conditions created by the Respondent States in the eastern provinces of the 7