57. The complainant further reiterates that the violation, according to him, by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, of the regulations which stipulate that once the exchanges of memoranda are completed, the latter should close the case file within 5 months, as since August 1998, the complainants had not received any news from the said Chamber in spite of several reminders and, according to the complainants, despite the fact that the Judges of this Court were << perfectly aware of the implications of this procedure for the complainants >>. 58. The complainant party moreover denounces the attitude of the powers that be, who had made promises which never culminated in results, but above all the shortcomings of the Cameroonian Authorities exposed by the mal-functioning of the Commission responsible for compensating the victims of the violence (placed under the Prime Minister's Office), which had been created in the context of the effort to find an amicable solution to the problem. This Commission, declares the complainant, had been one of the local remedies open to the victims. But 12 years after its creation and 11 years after having heard the victims, this Commission had still not submitted its report. There again, concludes the complainant, the delay is unduly prolonged. The complainant therefore implores the African Commission to declare the complaint admissible. Arguments of the Respondent State on the admissibility of the case 59. The Respondent State had for its part pleaded, during the hearing before the African Commission at its 34th Ordinary Session, that the delays observed in the administration of justice in Cameroon are due to the under developed nature of the country, which does not have the means to provide all the facilities required for a diligent justice system, and not to a deliberate desire by the Government to hinder the administration of justice. 60. The Respondent State again reiterated this point during a hearing by the African Commission at its 35th Ordinary Session. In its memorandum on admissibility submitted on this occasion, the Respondent State pleads that the complaint is still under consideration before one of the highest national Courts which, certainly has a lot of backlog in its work, but which is aware of the situation and that the Parties require that the case be concluded by the national legal Authorities. Thus, on the 25th February and the 31st March 2004, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court held two ordinary sessions. The debate on the case in question, scheduled for the 31st March 2004 had been postponed to the 26th May 2004 on the request of the Counsel for the complainants. 61. The Respondent State further pointed out that for these reasons, the Complainant should not speak of abnormally long delays in the Cameroonian justice system, particularly where the << current delay is not attributable to the Court in charge of the case but rather to the Complainant Party itself >>. 62. In consequence, the Respondent State requests the African Commission to declare the communication inadmissible. Analysis of the African Commission on the admissibility 63. The African Commission considers that the complainant party, before appearing before it had started to use the remedies available at the local level. The procedure before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court had lasted 5 years without any feedback for the complainants, contrary to the regulations in force and in spite of the numerous reminders which had been sent to the said Court. The African Commission therefore considers that the delay on the part of the Court in the treatment of the case was unduly prolonged. 64. Pertaining to the Compensation Commission set up under the Prime Minister's Office, its operations were highly inefficient as 12 years after its creation and 11 years after hearing the victims, it had not published its report. There also, the African Commission considers that this ad hoc Commission, whose establishment was aimed at achieving an amicable settlement of the case, had registered excessive delays in its operations. 65. The Respondent State pleads that the legal authorities remain aware of the case at the national level but the African Commission considers the delays by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cameroon excessive. 66. The African Commission further notes that re-introduction of the proceedings on the case before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in February 2004, namely after a gap of 5 years, only took place after the submission of a Complaint (to the African Commission), by the victims in April 2003 and after the decision on seizure taken by the Commission on the said complaint in May 2003 (33rd Ordinary 5