its “vital needs.” The Complainant also claims that military helicopters from the Respondent State provide arms and supplies of food to the Janjaweed. 13. The Complainant alleges that in addition to attacking rebel targets, the Respondent State’s campaign has targeted the civilian population, adding that villages, markets, and water wells have been raided and bombed by helicopter gunships and Antonov airplanes. 14. The Complainant claims that residents of hundreds of villages have been forcibly evicted, their homes and other structures totally or partially burned and destroyed. That thousands of civilians in Darfur have been killed in deliberate and indiscriminate attacks and more than a million people have been displaced. Complaint 15. The Complainant in the COHRE Case alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 4, 5, 6 7, 12 (1), 14, 16, 18 (1) and 22 of the African Charter. It requests the African Commission to hold the Respondent State liable for the human rights violations in the Darfur region. 16. The Complainant also urges the African Commission to place the violations described in the communication, before the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union for consideration under Article 58 of the African Charter; that the African Commission, should undertake an in-depth study of the situation in Darfur and make a factual report with findings and recommendations as mandated in Article 58.2 of the African Charter; and that the African Commission should adopt Provisional Measures in view of the urgency required in this communication. Procedure 17. The SHRO Case was received by post at the Secretariat of the African Commission (the th Secretariat) on 18 September 2003. th 18. On 10 October 2003, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complaint and indicated that it th would be considered on seizure by the African Commission during its 34 Ordinary Session held from th th 6 – 20 November 2003, in Banjul, The Gambia. th 19. During its 34 Ordinary Session, the African Commission examined the Communication and decided to be seized of it. nd 20. On 2 December 2003, the Secretariat notified the Respondent State of this decision, sent a copy of the complaint, and requested it to send its arguments on admissibility within three months. nd 21. This decision was also conveyed to the Complainants by letter dated 2 December 2003. th 22. On 29 March 2004, the Respondent State informed the Secretariat that due to various reasons, it would not be able to present its submissions on admissibility and promised to send the said observations at the earliest time possible. th 23. During its 35 Ordinary Session which was held in Banjul, The Gambia in May/June 2004, the African Commission deferred consideration on the admissibility of the Communication to its th 36 Ordinary Session at the Respondent State’s request. th 24. In the meantime, during the 35 Ordinary Session the Complainants delivered to the Secretariat documents containing supplementary information relevant to the complaint. th 25. On 6 July 2004, the Secretariat informed both parties about its decision to defer the Communication and reminded the Respondent State to submit its arguments on admissibility. At the same time, the Secretariat conveyed the Complainants’ supplementary submissions to the Respondent State, and also notified the Complainants about the Respondent State’s request for a deferral of consideration on the admissibility. 26. Seizing the opportunity of a Commission’s fact finding mission to the Respondent State, the Secretariat sent another set of the Communication documents to the Respondent State… th rd th 27. During its 36 Ordinary Session, held from 23 November to 7 December 2004 in Dakar, Senegal, the African Commission considered the Complaint and decided to defer its decision on th admissibility to its 37 Ordinary Session. The Respondent State had submitted its arguments on admissibility during the said Session.