18. On 20 October 1990, at its 8th ordinary session in Banjul, the African Commission was seized of the communication and decided to notify the State of Zaire of the complaint and invite its written comments on the admissibility. 19. On 6 November 1990, the Secretariat of the Commission informed the Ministry of Zaire of this decision by registered post. No response was forthcoming. 20. At its 11th ordinary session, the Commission decided to send a reminder to Zaire. The Secretariat sent this reminder on 30 March 1992. No response was forthcoming. 21. At its 12th ordinary session, held in Banjul in October 1992, the Commission declared the communication admissible and decided that it would be examined on the merits. 22. The notice of this decision was sent on 16 November 1992. No response was forthcoming. 23. In 1993 and 1994, the Secretariat sent several reminders to the government of Zaire. No response was received. 24. From August 1994 to the present, the correspondence in respect of this communication is identical with that in communication 25/89 above. 25. Communication no 56/91 was received by the Commission in the summer of 1991. 26. The Commission was seized of the communication at its 10th session in October 1991 and a notification was sent to the state on 14 November, 1991. No response was forthcoming. 27. Two reminders were sent by the Secretariat to the government of Zaire in 1992. 28. In a letter dated 14 September 1993, the Ministry of Justice of Zaire claimed that a copy of the communication had never been received. 29. A copy of the communication was sent on 3 March 1994 by registered post to the Embassy in Dakar, but no response was received. 30. From August 1994, the correspondence in respect of this communication is identical with that in communication 25/89, given above. 31. Communication no 100/93 was received by the Commission in April 1993. 32. The Commission was seized of the communication at its 13th session in April 1993 and it was brought to the attention of the state on 12 April 1993. No response was forthcoming. 33. In 1993 and 1994, reminders were sent to the government of Zaire but no response was forthcoming. 34. As from August 1994, the correspondence in respect of this communication is identical with that in communication 25/89, given above. Law Admissibility 35. After deliberations, as envisioned by article 58 of the African Charter, the Commission considered that communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91 and 100/93 against Zaire reveal the existence of serious and massive violations of human rights. 36. Article 56 of the African Charter requires that complainants exhaust local remedies before the Commission can take up a case, unless these remedies are as a practical matter unavailable or unduly prolonged. The requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is founded on the principle that a government should have notice of a human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violations before being called before an international body. In this case, the government has had ample notice of the violation. 37. The Commission has never held the requirement of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is impractical or undesirable for the complainant to seize the domestic courts in the case of each violation. This is the situation here, given the vast and varied scope of the violations alleged and the general situation prevailing in Zaire.