.../~_H~,\,AC H P R ( ~'African Commission on Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 'o:ruI,n'f!jJ! Human and Peoples' Rights 21. On the 14thof May, the Secretariat sent a request to the Respondent State to furnish proof of transmittal of its Note Verba le, in which the respondent State had alleged that it filed an objection on the admissibility of the Communication at hand. 22. On 30thJune 2015 (after one and half a month) the Secretariat advised the Respondent State to submit on merits given that the latter had failed to submit the proof of transmittal of the Norte Verable in which it claimed to have filed an objection on Admissibility of this Communication. The Respondent State was given 30 days within which to file its submission from the date of notification, something that they never heeded. ~, ~- , *" 23. The Commission deferred consideration of this Communication between the 56th and 59th Ordinary Sessions of the Commission to later dates for various reasons; notifying the Parties. THE LAW ON ADMISSIBILITY The Complainant's Submissions on Admissibility 24. The Complainants submitted that the requirements under sub-articles I, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Article 56 have been complied with. 25. Regarding Article 56(5), the Complainants indicated that on 23 June 2011, the First Victim filed a complaint with the public military prosecutor about the violations she had suffered in the military prison who ordered a military investigation into her claims. Proceedings were initiated at the Supreme Military Court against Dr EI-Mogywho was charged with indecency and insubordination. The Complainants state that Dr EI-Mogy was tried and acquitted of all charges on 11 March 2012. 26. The Complainants submitted that on 17 July 2011,a case was filed on behalf of the First Victim and others, before the Administrative Court by a coalition of rights groups demanding the immediate cessation of the virginity testing policy in military prisons. The Court ruled that the forced genital examinations carried out on the detainees were illegal and that any further occurrence of such would be illegal. 27. According to the Complainants, the above decision only provided protection against future abuses through the practice of virginity testing but does not afford any Court, the head of the military stated that the ruling was inapplicable 51Pagc ~('''''M!~ A~~~~t1)