th 18. On 18 and 21st September 2001, the Secretariat wrote to the Respondent State and the Complainant respectively reminding them to forward their submissions on admissibility. th 19. On 24 September 2001, the Secretariat received a letter from INTERIGHTS stating that they th would not be able to forward their submissions for consideration at the forthcoming 30 Session as there are elements missing from their submissions that have not been transmitted by the lawyers of the victims. th 20. At its 30 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission considered the communication and decided to defer the matter to the 31st Ordinary Session to allow the Complainants forward their submissions on admissibility. th 21. On 9 November 2001, the parties were informed of the [African] Commission’s decision. nd 22. On 2 January 2002, the Complainants were reminded to submit their written submissions on admissibility. th 23. By email on 7 January 2002, the Complainants informed the Secretariat that they had sent a request for supplementary information to their colleagues in Namibia but had not yet heard from them and in the event that they do not hear from them they would actively consider sending a notification for discontinuance of the case. th 24. On 19 March 2002, the Secretariat wrote enquiring as to whether the Complainants still wished to proceed with the communication and if that were the case to forward their written submissions on admissibility. th 25. The Complainant on 20 March 2002 wrote informing the Secretariat that despite repeated attempts they had failed to secure a response from their colleagues at the National Society for Human Rights. The Complainants assured the Secretariat that if this situation does not change before the next session, then they would request the [African] Commission to authorise them to withdraw the communication. Law Admissibility 26. Article 56 of the African Charter governs admissibility. The most relevant provisions of that Article provide communications … received by the Commission shall be considered if they: “(5)… are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. 27. The Respondent State argues that following refusal by the Minister of Home Affairs to honour the th High Court decision on 24 October 2000 ordering Sikunda’s release from detention, Sikunda’s lawyers sought to enforce the court order by an application to commit the Minister of Home Affairs for contempt of court. 28. The Respondent State submits that INTERIGHTS submitted the present communication to the African Commission on 31st January 2001 whilst the matter of hearing the application of a rule nisi showing cause why the Home Affairs Minister should not be held in contempt of court was still pending before the High Court. Indeed, [the] High Court heard the matter on 1st February 2001 and th delivered judgement on 9 February 2001, finding the Minister of Home Affairs in contempt of court. Therefore, the Respondent State argues, that INTERIGHTS by submitting a complaint on 31st January 2001 had failed to meet the requirements of Article 56.5 of the African Charter. 29. The Complainants on the other hand have been repeatedly requested by the [African] Commission to furnish their submissions on admissibility, especially on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies but there has not been any response from them. 30. Thus, from the information available to the [African] Commission and principally from the copy of th the judgement of the High Court of Namibia delivered on 9 February 2001; the [African] Commission observes that the Complainant brought the matter before it prior to exhausting domestic remedies, indeed while the matter was still pending before the High Court of Namibia.