11. The Batwas appealed the judgment at the Court of Appeal of Bukavu by arguing, inter alia, that the original application never requested the judge of the District Court to rule on any issue of constitutionality, and that by so doing, the court ruled ultra pefita. Notwithstanding the relevance of the arguments put forward and submitted on behalf of the Batwa victims, the Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the District Court in all its provisions and dismissed the appeal. 12. In December 2013, the Batwas lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of Kinshasa, by alleging, among others, that the judges of the two lower courts had distorted the meaning of Article 34 of the Constitution by viewing it as the object of the application and not as the source of the relevant law and asserting that the dispute bordered on an issue of unconstitutionality. To date, the case is still pending at the Supreme Court and no progress has been made in recent years. The Complaint: 13. The Complainants allege that the following Articles of the African Charter have been violated: 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, 17, 21,22 and 24. Prayers: 14. The Complainants are requesting the Commission to: a. Grant provisional measures to the Batwa community of the Kahuzi-Biega Park as a means of protecting the community from any possible acts of harassment and intimidation that may arise from the seizure of the Commission; b. Declare the Communication admissible; C. Establish that the facts constitute a violation by the Respondent State of the following articles of the African Charter: 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, 17, 21,22 and 24. The Procedure 15. The Complaint was received by the Secretariat of the African Commission on 2 November, 2015 and the Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 21 january, 2016. 16. At the 19* Extraordinary Session held from 16 to 26 February, 2016 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the Communication and decided to 3