th th th 50. At its 39 Ordinary Session held from 11 – 25 May 2006, the African Commission considered the communication and declared it admissible. The Commission decided to consolidate the Communication with the SHRO case. th 51. By Note Verbale dated 29 May 2006 and by letter of the same date, both parties were notified of th the Commission’s decision and requested to make submissions on the merits before 29 August 2006. rd 52. On 23 August 2006, the Secretariat received the Complainant’s submissions on the merits of the communication. On 1st October 2006, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainant’s submissions. th 53. On 8 October 2006, the Secretariat forwarded the Complainant’s submissions to the Respondent State and reminded the latter to make its submissions on the merits before 31st October 2006. th th th 54. At its 40 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 15 – 29 November 2006, the African Commission considered the Communication and deferred it to its 41st Ordinary Session pending the Respondent State’s response. th 55. By Note Verbale of 4 January 2007 and by letter of the same date, both parties were notified of the Commission’s decision. th 56. By Note Verbale of 11 April 2007, the Secretariat reminded the Respondent State to submit its arguments on the merits. th 57. On 25 May 2007, during the 41st Ordinary Session, the Secretariat received the State’s submissions on the merits. 58. At its 41st Ordinary Session held in Accra, Ghana, the Commission considered the nd Communication and deferred it to its 42 Ordinary Session to allow the Secretariat to translate the submissions and prepare a draft decision. th 59. By Note Verbale of 10 July 2007 and letter of the same date both parties were notified of the Commission’s decision. nd th th 60. At its 42 Ordinary Session held from 15 –28 November 2007, in Brazzaville, Congo, the rd Commission considered the Communication and deferred it to its 43 Ordinary Session because the Respondent State made additional submissions on the matter during the Session. rd 61. At its 43 Ordinary Session held in Ezulwini, the Kingdom of Swaziland, the Commission th deferred the communication to its 44 Ordinary Session to allow the Secretariat to prepare a draft decision th 62. At its 44 Ordinary Session Abuja, Nigeria, the Commission considered the Communication and th deferred further consideration to the 45 Ordinary Session due to time constraints. Law Submissions on admissibility The SHRO Case Complainants’ submissions on admissibility 63. The Complainants submit that acts of violence were committed in a discriminatory manner against populations of Black African origin, in the Darfur region, namely the Fur, Massaleit and Zaggawa tribes. 64. They add that the Respondent State is “governed by a military regime, which does not attach the required importance to normal procedures under the Rule of law or respect for the country’s institutions,”[/quote hence citizens, groups and organizations cannot bring issues of human rights violations before independent and impartial Courts, because of the [quote]“inevitable harassment, threats, intimidations and disruption of normal life by State security agents”. 65. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State continues to hold Mr Hassan El Turabi, leader of the political party National Popular Congress, in detention, in spite of the rulings by the Constitutional Court which gave instructions for his release. That the Darfur region has been placed