th 43. The Parties had been respectively informed in a Note Verbale and a letter dated 19 December rd 2007 about the deferment of the examination of the decision on the merits to the 43 Ordinary th th Session of the Commission to be held from 15 to 29 May 2008 in Ezulwini, in the Kingdom of Swaziland. th th 44. In a Note Verbale dated 18 March 2008 and a letter dated 20 March 2008, the Parties had rd been reminded of the deferment of the case to the 43 Ordinary Session of the Commission. The Parties had however been informed of the change of dates of the said Session the holding of which th nd th th had been brought forward to the 7 to 22 May 2008 instead of from 15 to 29 May as had been initially announced. th 45. In a Note Verbale dated 24 October 2008, the Secretariat informed the Respondent State about th the deferment of consideration on the decision on the merits of the communication to the 44 Ordinary th th Session scheduled for the 10 to 24 November 2008 in Abuja, Nigeria. th 46. During the same period of the 24 October 2008, the complainants had been informed by letter of th the deferment of the communication for examination on the merits to the 44 Ordinary Session of the African Commission. th 47. After the examination of the communication at the 44 Ordinary Session held in Abuja in the th Federal Republic of Nigeria, the African Commission deferred the reexamination to the 45 Ordinary th th Session scheduled for the 13 to 27 May 2009 in Banjul, the Gambia for the consideration of the new developments in the area of international law. st 48. In a Note Verbale dated 21 December 2008 and a letter dated the same day, the Secretariat th informed the Parties to the communication about the deferment of the case to the 45 Ordinary th th rd Session scheduled for 13 to 27 May 2009. In addition by note Verbale dated 23 April 2009 and a letter dated the same day, a reminder was sent to the parties. th 49. The parties to the communication were informed that the matter was deferred to the 46 Ordinary th th Session of the Commission scheduled to be held in Banjul, The Gambia from 11 -25 November th 2009 in a Note Verbale and a letter both dated June 11 , 2009. The Law Admissibility 50. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights stipulates in its Article 56 that the communications referred to inArticle 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 th 05 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 th the 13 March 1998. The latter conveyed its statement on defence to the complainants on the th th 12 August 1998. Since that date and in spite of the reaction of the complainants (27 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