the 58th Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on admissibility. 21. By letter dated 22 November 2016 the Complainant was informed that they should submit their submissions within one month, failing which it would be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution. By note verbale on the same date the State was informed that the Communication was deferred. 22. By letter and note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the 23. By note verbale dated 08 August 2017 and August 2017, the Respondent State Complainant's submissions Communication be struck out. ilty Secretariat informed the Parties recei at | os Parties that the Co: within which to s would be struck © the Secretariat on 14 ‘ve-not yet received the equested that the “ oe 2017 the Secretariat informed the d an additional thirty (30) days g which the Communication 27. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one (1) month. 28. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date of notification of the seizure decision, which had expired on 07 May 2016. ZA AMIN ND BS