th 24. By letter dated 6 April 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the Complainants‟ submissions on admissibility and forwarded a copy of the same by DHL to the Respondent State. th 25. At its 35 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, the Gambia from 21 May to 4 June 2004, the African th Commission decided to defer further consideration on admissibility of the matter to its 36 Ordinary Session because the Complainants undertook to provide the African Commission with information in respect of Miscellaneous Case No. 1110 of 2002 - Justice Ole Keiwua and Justice Vitalis Juma versus In the Matter of Prof. Yash Pal Ghai and two others which was heard in the High Court of Kenya. th 26. By Note Verbale dated 15 June 2004 addressed to the Respondent State and by latter carrying the same date address to the Complainant, both parties were informed of the African Commission‟s decision. rd 27. By letter dated 23 September 2004, the Complainant was reminded to submit the information th they undertook to submit during the 35 Ordinary Session of the African Commission. th rd th 28. At its 36 Ordinary Session held from 23 November to 7 December in Dakar, Senegal, The African Commission considered the communication and declared it inadmissible. Law Admissibility th 29. The African Commission was seized with the present communication at its 34 Ordinary Session th th which was held in Banjul, The Gambia from 6 to 20 November 2003. Both the Respondent State and the Complainants have presented their written arguments on admissibility of the communication. 30. Article 56 of the African Charter governs admissibility of communications brought before the African Commission in accordance with Article 55 of the African Charter. 31. The Respondent State contends that the requirements of Article 56.5 have not been met by the Complainants. Article 56.5) of the African Charter provides: Communications ... received by the African 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. 32. The rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies has been applied by international adjudicating bodies and is premised on the principle that the Respondent State must first have an opportunity to redress by its own means and within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual. 33. The Complainants submit that the circumstances that gave rise to this communication are peculiar. It is based on a suit that was instituted by a Judge of the High Court and a Judge of the Court of Appeal with the aim of defeating the rights of Kenyan citizens to contribute to the constitution making process in the country. 34. Therefore, the Complainants claim that exhausting local remedies in this case would be impossible and inordinately convoluted because the judiciary is compromised and severely lacking in independence. Furthermore, the Complainants argue that the said judges who instituted the matter are arguably representative of all the members of the judiciary and as such it would be virtually impossible to obtain a fair hearing from the same judiciary. 35. In applying the rule of exhausting domestic remedies, the African Commission often requires the 1 Complainant to provide information on attempts made to exhaust local remedies.