In Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Sudan Evictions v The Sudan$, the Commission and Centre on Housing Rights and stated that ‘a matter shall be considered settled within the context of Article 56 (7) of the African Charter, if it was settled by any of the UN human rights treaty bodies or any other international adjudication mechanism, with a human rights mandate. This Commission is one such adjudication body with a human rights mandate. 58. With regard to the identity of the parties, the Complainant in oe i the individuals on whose behalf proceedings were initiatcl ih case was one of Communication 275/03 - Article 19 v Eritrea. 9 sian 59. In respect of the substance of the two cases,gt Ml I not ieie n terms a lb, Stns recommendation: a 58. The Commission recalls its decteriris in Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon", in which it stated that o'be settled, the treaty or Charter body dealing with the matter should have taken a decision which addresses the concerns, including the relief being sought by the Cd plainant. 59. The Commission observes therefore that the rights and obligations of the parties were duly determined in Article 19 v Eritrea. The Commission also notes that the present 8 Communications 279/03, 296/05 - Sudan Human Rights Organization & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan, (2010) ACHPR 28 Activity Report, para 104. 9 See Article 19 v Eritrea, para 3. 10 See Article 19 v Eritrea, para 3. 11 Communication 279/03 - Kelvin Gunme et al v Cameroon (2009) ACHPR, 28t* Activity Report, para 86,