30. On 12 May 2014, the Complainant submitted her arguments on the merits.
The Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 22 May 2014 and forwarded the
submission to the Respondent State on the same date. On 21 July 2014, the
Respondent State requested for a 60-day extension to submit its observations.
On 22 July 2014, the Secretariat granted a 30-day extension in accordance with
the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The Complainant was informed of this
latest development.
31. On 21 October 2014, the Respondent State submitted its observations to the
Secretariat. On 28 October 2014, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt and
forwarded the observations to the Complainant for her comments.
32. On 28 November 2014, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat requesting
for an extension to submit her observations. On 8 December 2014, the
Secretariat granted a 30-day extension in accordance with the Commission’s
Rules of Procedure. The Respondent State was informed of the extension.
33. On 4 January 2015, the Complainant forwarded her observations to the
Secretariat. On 26 January 2015, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt and
forwarded the observations to the Respondent for a rebuttal, if any. There
was no other correspondence between the parties.
The Law on Admissibility
Complainant’s Submissions on Admissibility
34. The Complainant submits that the Communication meets the conditions to be
declared admissible, basing her admissibility arguments on the fact that the
requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African
Charter has been met.
35. The Complainant submits that the exhaustion of local remedies requirement
is inseparable from that of the prior existence of available and fair local
remedies, and that such a condition can become an obstacle only in cases
where prompt and sufficient local remedies are available. The Complainant
further submits that going by the jurisprudence of the Commission, the
condition of exhaustion of local remedies must be applied concomitantly with
Article 7 which establishes and protects the right to a fair trial.
36. The Complainant submits that local remedies exist in this case but are not
available. She submits that since the property was acquired in the most legal
7