scheduled for the 13th to 27th May 2009 in Banjul, the Gambia for the consideration of the new developments in the area of international law. 48. In a Note Verbale dated 21st December 2008 and a letter dated the same day, the Secretariat informed the Parties to the communication about the deferment of the case to the 45th Ordinary Session scheduled for 13th to 27th May 2009. In addition by note Verbale dated 23rd April 2009 and a letter dated the same day, a reminder was sent to the parties. 49. The parties to the communication were informed that the matter was deferred to the 46th Ordinary Session of the Commission scheduled to be held in Banjul, The Gambia from 11th-25th November 2009 in a Note Verbale and a letter both dated June 11th, 2009. The Law Admissibility 50. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights stipulates in its Article 56 that the communications referred to in Article 55 should necessarily, in order to be considered, be sent after all local remedies have been exhausted, if they exist, unless the procedure of exhaustion of local remedies is unduly prolonged. 51. In this instance, the complainant, while admitting that the case is still under consideration by the legal Authorities of the Respondent State who had been seized of it, contends that the procedures are unduly prolonged and that under these conditions the requirement that local remedies be exhausted as stipulated by Article 56 of the African Charter, cannot apply. Arguments of the Complainant Party on the admissibility of the case 52. In support of his argument, the complainant contends, in his memorandum on admissibility dated 05th August 2003, that the complaint had been deposited with the African Commission five years after the same complaint against Cameroon had been brought before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of this State, and which has, to date, remained without any response. 53. In the memorandum cited earlier, the complainant further contends that the alleged victims of the complaint had made several fruitless submissions for an out-of-court settlement to the administrative and political Authorities of the Respondent State. The alleged victims had then brought an appeal for liability against the State of Cameroon before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court on the 13th March 1998. The latter conveyed its statement on defence to the complainants on the 12th August 1998. Since that date and in spite of the reaction of the complainants (27th August 1998) and the numerous reminders, the complainants did not receive any more information relating to the case from the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, and this despite the national3 procedural legislation which stipulates that once the exchange of arguments is completed, the case files should be closed in the 5 months that follow. 5 years have passed without any reaction from the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. 54. It is for this reason, pleads the complainant, that although local remedies are available, they do not << at all respond to the imperative of efficacy which is their raison d'?tre>>. The complainant adds that the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court is familiar with this type of practices, which is why Cameroon had been condemned by the African Commission 4 (for a case which had remained pending for 12 years before the Yaoundé Court of Appeal) as well as by the United Nations Human Rights Commission5 (for a case which had remained pending before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court for more than 4 years). 55. During a hearing at the 34th Ordinary Session of the African Commission, the complainant party had reiterated these arguments insisting on the fact that the bringing of this case before the African Commission had contributed a lot to the revival of the case by the Cameroon legal Authorities after all these years of inaction. 56. In its memorandum with supplementary information on admissibility, dated 18th March 2004, the complainant recalled that the Respondent State had been condemned by the African Commission and by the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the slowness of its justice system. These delays, which cannot be attributed to Cameroon's underdevelopment, but rather, according to the complainant, << to the inefficiency of the Cameroonian national Authorities, both legal and administrative >> are not only contrary to the African Charter but also to the principles of the right to a fair hearing adopted by the African Commission. 4