13. On 15 December 2021, the Secretariat informed the Complainant that the Communication would be tabled for striking out for want of diligent prosecution, on account of the failure of the Complainant to respond to the Commission's request for submissions on the admissibility of the Communication, and further that the deadline for doing so had passed. Analysis of the Commission on Strike Out: 14. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rule of Procedure (2010) provides that when the Commission is seized of a Complaint, it shall request the Complainant to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months. 15. Additionally, Rule 113 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (2010) also provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either Party may apply to the Commission for an extension of the stipulated period and the Commission may grant the said application. 16. In the present Communication, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date of notification, which expired on 27 April 2018. However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within the stipulated time and neither did he apply for an extension. 17. Almost four years have lapsed since the expiry of the deadline and no evidence and arguments have been submitted by the Complainant on the Admissibility of the Communication. 18. In light of the above, the Commission finds that the Complainant has not shown any interest in prosecuting this Communication and therefore the Commission does not have sufficient information upon which to determine the Admissibility of the said Communication. 19. The Commission takes note of the following jurisprudence which were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution: Communication 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. The Arab Republic of Egypt;2 Communication 637/16 and 639/16 Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors (Represented by Dr. Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4 Ors) v. Arab Republic of Egypt;3 Communication 544/15 European Alliance for Human Rights (AEQ and 3 Others v. Egypt;4 Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnan�·:..,�"-i<' d Communication 623/16: Miles Investments & 2 Others v. Repub ·· f-<.Si' 0 Leone. 6 ,f�-;;s' \ ..,.,,. . � i\ � ,\<: 9� � -'l(;_ - U,q 'IJ ° 0 t�) �.r/, 2I t'-?(Wt � · t:- ...,:P.� Communication 637/16 and 639/16 Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors t,� F,ef�firei:IEBfpr: 01:s PEUI'\. Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4 Ors) v Arab Republic of Egypt (2019) ACHPR 4 Communication 544/15 European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and 3 Others v. Egypt (20 8 5 Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. Togo (2015) ACHPR 6 Communication 623/16: Miles Investments & 2Others v. Republic ofSierra Leone (2020) ACHPR 2 Communication 6 12/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. The Arab Republic ofEg 3 4