Summary of Respondent State's Submission 68. In its submission on the merits, the Respondent State argues first that the Communication should not have been declared admissible because that it failed to meet the requirements for admissibility as set out in the African Charter. The Respondent State argues that Article 57 of the African Charter requires that prior to the consideration of a Communication on the merit, the Chairperson of the Commission ought to present the Complaint before the Respondent State, setting out procedural matters and indicating whether the Complaint conforms to the provisions of the African Charter and other African Union (AU) instruments relevant to the matter. The Respondent State contends that this requirement had not been met with respect to the present Communication. 69. The Respondent State argues further that the Communication is not admissible for failure to comply with the requirements of Articles 50 and 56(5) of the African Charter regarding exhaustion of local remedies. The Respondent State also alleges that the Commission failed to comply with Rule 6 (3) of its own Rules of Procedure which prohibits "unrecognised National Liberation Movements from submitting matters for inclusion in the agenda of sessions of the Commission". The Respondent State insists that the Complainant is not qualified to submit this Communication to the African Commission's Session as it is neither a State Party nor a party entitled to bring "Other Communications" before the Commission. 70. Citing Articles 3(b)13 and 4(b)14 of the AU Constitutive Act, the Respondent State argues that the present Communication cannot proceed as it challenges the existing borders of an AU Member State and threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Respondent State. 71. With respect to the merits of the Communication, the Respondent State supplied its version of the history of Angola emphasising that both the Alvor Accord of 1975 and the Constitution of Angola endow it with sovereignty over the territory now known as Angola, including the Province of Cabinda. The Respondent State argues therefore that the right to self-determination has been exercised by the collective "peoples" of Angola and does not avail minorities and ethnic groups because it can only be available to states emerging from colonial boundaries in recognition of the principle of "uti possidetis juris". 72. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 14 of the African Charter, the Respondent State contends that the right to property is also enshrined in Articles 14 and 37 of its own Constitution. The Respondent State argues that the right to property in its Constitution is guaranteed in the interest of individuals, corporate bodies and local communities which "implies all the people of Angola" 73. The Respondent State argues further that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the government of Angola does not manage the resources of Cabinda for the benefit of the people of Cabinda. The Respondent State avers that the government administers all its natural resources in an equitable and balanced manner as a common asset for the economic, social and cultural development of the country and in the national interest. 74. The Respondent State insists that the government of the Province of Cabinda receives a share of the Angolan State General Budget just like every other provincial government in Angola. Further, that by Article 7 of the Angolan State General Budget Act (no 26/10) the Provinces of Cabinda and Zaire receive amounts equal to 10 percent of earnings from petroleum resources in addition to other expenditures and costs for the construction of schools, roads, bridges, harbours, hospitals and other socio-economic infrastructure. Thus, the Respondent State contends that it has not violated Article 14 of the African Charter since its affairs are run "in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws". 75. As regards the alleged violation of Article 19 of the African Charter, the Respondent State asserts that Article 21 of its own Constitution provides for the principle of equality and that principle is implemented in all its 18 provinces. The Respondent State argues that as a result of its domestic constitutional obligation it "cannot implement measures aimed at developing the country based on the premise that revenue should be spent only in areas where it is generated". The Respondent State cites the example of its on-going "Strategy to Fight Poverty" which aims to achieve a "50% reduction by 2015 in the number of people with less than USD1.00 per day". 76. The Respondent State insists further that as compared to other provinces, the Province of Cabinda enjoys a special status in view of its contribution towards the Angolan State General Budget. The Respondent State also asserts that as contained in recent United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF) reports, there is an overall improvement in areas such as child health care and health care generally. Accordingly, the Respondent State contends, it has not violated Article 19 of the African Charter as it relates to the Province of Cabinda. 77. As regards the alleged violation of Article 20 of the African Charter, the Respondent State contends that 7