25. On 12 January 2010, the Secretariat received a letter from the Complainant urging the African Commission to take immediate action and to appoint a Special Rapporteur for Cabinda. 26. During its 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th Ordinary Sessions, the African Commission deferred the consideration of the Communication, and the Parties were accordingly informed. At its 10th Extraordinary Session held in December 2011, the Commission considered the Communication and declared it Admissible. The Parties were accordingly informed and invited to submit their Arguments on the Merit. 27. Between January and March 2012, the Secretariat received submissions from three different organisations representing different groups in Cabinda (joint submission by the Front de Liberation de L'Etat du Cabinda (FLEC) et Union Nationale de Liberation du Cabinda (UNLC), and individual submissions by the "Original FLEC" and the Mouvement Pour Le Rassemblement Du Peuple Cabindais et Pour Sa Souverainete "MRPCS). On 29 March 2012, the Secretariat received a Submission on the Merit from Dr Jonathan Levy acting in his capacity as legal representative of the Complainant.3 The Complainant's Submission on the Merit was accordingly transmitted to the Respondent State. 28. On 24 April 2012, the Respondent State's Note Verbale forwarding the latter's Arguments on the Merit was received at the Secretariat and transmitted to Complainant through its legal representative. 29. On 12 July 2012, the Complainant through its legal representative forwarded its Supplementary Submission on the Merit. On 10, 12 and 28 September 2012, the Secretariat received the same copy of an updated and amended Submission on the Merit from the Respondent State. 30. On 18 June 2013, the Secretariat received additional Submissions from the "Collectif des organisations cabindaises" also known as the "Original FLEC". This submission was followed by a letter protesting notification that the submission has been made out of time and a request for reopening of the procedure for submission of additional documents by both parties. 31. At its 54th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia in October 2013, the Commission considered the Communication on the Merit based on all the documents submitted by the Parties and the various Amicus briefs. The Law Admissibility Submission of the Complainant on Admissibility 32. Although the Complainant submitted its written arguments on the admissibility of the Communication, the Respondent State failed to submit any arguments on the admissibility of the Communication despite an invitation and repeated reminders to do so. Accordingly, the Commission addresses the question of Admissibility on the basis of the Complainant's arguments on Admissibility. 33. The Complainant submits that the Communication meets all the Admissibility requirements set out in Article 56 of the African Charter. Regarding Article 56 (1) of the African Charter, the Complainant avers that the Communication is submitted by FLEC on behalf of the people of Cabinda. 34. Concerning Article 56 (2) of Charter, the Complainant submits that the Respondent State has violated Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter. The Complainant further submits that although the Communication alleges serious violations of the economic and peoples" rights of the people of Cabinda by the Government of Angola, the Complainant does not request the African Commission to take up any matter that would interfere with the sovereignty of Angola or adjudication of Angolan territorial claims in Cabinda. The Complainant states that they are mindful that the African Commission must respect Articles 3(b) and 4(b) of the AU Constitutive Act regarding territorial sovereignty and respecting existing borders. 35. With regards to Article 56 (3) of the African Charter, the Complainant avers that the language used in the Communication is neutral legal language. In relation to Article 56 (4) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the Communication is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media, but rather on primary information provided by FLEC and other organizations directly involved in the matter. 36. On the requirement of the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, the Complainant requests the Commission to wave this condition on the basis that exhaustion of domestic remedies is futile and legally impossible on the grounds that there is unrest and armed conflict involving the Parties and this creates difficulties for the commencement of legal proceedings by the Complainant. The Complainant avers further that the only independent civil society organisation which could have brought a 3