th th th 14. During its 27 Ordinary Session held from 27 April to 11 May 2000 in Algiers, Algeria, the African Commission heard the oral submissions of the parties and decided to consolidate all the communications brought against Sudan. The African Commission requested the parties to provide their written submission on the issues of exhaustion of local remedies. th 15. On 30 June 2000, these decisions were communicated to the parties. th rd th 16. At the 28 Ordinary Session held from 23 October to 6 November 2000 in Cotonou, Benin, the th African Commission decided to defer consideration of this case to the 29 Ordinary Session and requested the Secretariat to incorporate the oral submissions of the State delegate and the written submissions of the counsel into the draft decision to enable the African Commission take a reasoned decision on admissibility. th rd th 17. During the 29 Ordinary Session held in Tripoli, Libya, 23 April to 7 May 2001, the African Commission heard the parties on the case. Following detailed discussions, the African Commission noted that the Complainant had submitted a comprehensive dossier on the case. It was therefore th recommended that consideration of the communication be deferred to the 30 Ordinary Session, pending the submission of detailed replies of the Respondent State. th 18. On 19 June 2001, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties of the abovementioned decision and requested the Respondent State to send its written submissions within two months from the date of notification of the African Commission’s decision. th th th 19. During the 30 Ordinary Session held from 13 to 27 October 2001 in Banjul, The Gambia, the Respondent State and Dr Curtis Doebler presented their oral submissions. The African Commission decided to defer consideration of these communications to the 31st Ordinary Session and requested the Government of Sudan to reply to the Complainant’s submissions. th 20. On 15 November 2001, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties of the decision of the African Commission and requested the Respondent State to submit its written comments within two months from the date of the notification of the said decision. nd th 21. During its 31st Ordinary Session held from 2 to 16 May 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa, the African Commission heard oral submissions from the two parties and declared the communication admissible. The African Commission also decided to consolidate communications 222/98 and 229/99 due to the similarity of the allegations. th 22. On 29 May 2002, the Respondent State and the Complainants were informed of the decision adopted by the African Commission. nd th rd 23. At the 32 Ordinary Session held from 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the representative of the Respondent State made oral and written submissions requesting the African Commission to review its decision on admissibility relating to all the communications brought by the Complainant against the government of Sudan. The African Commission informed the Respondent State that the issue of admissibility of the communications had been settled and that the Respondent State should submit its arguments on the merits. rd th th 24. At its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15 to 29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African Commission considered this communication and decided to deliver its decision on the merits. Submissions of the Complainant 25. The Complainant informed the African Commission that the victims were released at the end of 1999 following the pardon granted by the President of Sudan. When they were released, the government announced that the case was closed and that no other legal proceedings could or would be initiated. The pardon was granted on condition that the victims renounce their right to appeal. 26. The Complainant informed the African Commission that there exists no effective means of obtaining redress, and that even when an appeal is made to the Constitutional Court, this has no effect because of the state of emergency in force. He added that lack of appropriate means of obtaining redress is a result of political restrictions which prevent its implementation.