international law and as such the Respondent State cannot be said to have violated Articles 1 and 4 of the African Charter. For these reasons, the Respondent State submits that the Communication is incompatible with the African Charter. 46. On the exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State notes that the Complainant is asking the African Commission to recommend that the AC HP R Respondent State adopts a law that does not exist in any jurisdiction in the world, save for the English Fatal Accident Act of 1976. The Respondent State argues that if the Complainant was sincere in its desire to see that a law is put in place to cater for the scenario mentioned in its Complaint, it would have lobbied organizations that share its views for the passing of such a law. Since this was not done, it is the Respondent State‟s contention that it is improper for the Complainant to approach the African Commission to request the latter to recommend the Respondent State to adopt such a law. 47. The Respondent State finally notes that since the Draft Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Draft Principles) is not yet law, the issues of damages has no foundation yet. For the above reasons, the Respondent State submits that the African Commission should dismiss the Communication. Analysis of the African Commission on Admissibility 48. Article 56 (2) requires Communications submitted for consideration by the African Commission to be “compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity … or with the present Charter”. The facts as presented to the African Commission suggests that the Complainant is seeking a 11