contentious issues that need to be analysed in line with the requirement listed in the Revised Communication Guidelines; these are: i. Whether or not the Communication raises matters pending settlement by another international body; ii. Whether the Complainants have exhausted local remedies and whether they should be exempted from exhausting local remedies; iii. Whether the communication is presented within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies. i. Whether or not the Communication raises matters pending settlement by another international body 11. Section IX (1) (c) of Revised Communication Guidelines states that a Communication is admissible if it ‘does not raise matters pending settlement or previously settled by another international body or procedure in accordance with any legal instruments of the Africa Union and principles of the United Nations Charter’. The Respondent State submits that the same issue is raised before the Special Mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, hence it falls within the exclusionary requirement of ‘matter pending before another international procedure’. Based on the requirement in Section IX (1) (c) of the Revised Communications Guidelines and the submission of the Respondent State, the Committee notes that the key issue of investigation is the nature of the adjudicating body where the current Communication is pending to be settled, which is the procedure within the Special Mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. 12. While examining the matter, the Committee notes that understanding the background importance of having the requirement mentioned above as a condition for considering the admissibility of a case is crucial. The Committee recognises that States should not be subjected to similar international and regional judicial or quasi-judicial procedures on similar alleged violations. The Committee further recognises that having various international judicial or quasi-judicial organs should not be used to create a hierarchy among such organs where one can appeal against the other. As stated in the admissibility ruling of the case Project Expedite Justice and others v The Sudan, the Committee notes that such requirements under its Guidelines are provided to prevent conflicting decisions and ensure the efficiency of transnational tribunals.1 Such admissibility criterion plays a role in ensuring ‘certainty and finality of international adjudications’.2 The same has been upheld by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, from whose jurisprudence the Committee can draw inspiration in line with article 46 of the Charter, where the Commission held that the rationale behind having such requirement of admissibility is ‘to desist from faulting member states twice for the same alleged violations of human rights….and ensures that no State may be sued or condemned for the same alleged violation of human rights’.3 The Committee further reiterates the Commission’s elucidation that the requirement is a principle that 1 ACERWC, Communication No 0011/Com/001/2018, Decision on Admissibility No 01/2019, Project Expedite Justice and others v The Sudan, para 33. 2 Frans Viljoen, ‘International Human Rights Law in Africa,’ 2012, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 321. 3 ACHPR, Communication 260/2002, Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon, (2004), para 52. JN 6