shall be informed that if they fail to comply within those times the Commission will act on the evidence before it. 148. The African Commission notes that while the afore cited Rule 119(2) only makes reference to the State Party, and Rule 119 (3) limits the choice of the Complainants to a reply only, it is important to point out here that, the Communication Procedure under the African Charter is dealt with in three AC HP R distinct phases – Seizure, Admissibility and Merits. There are different requirements to be satisfied at each of these phases. As such, the African Commission has adopted a practice that does not require the Complainants to make a full submission in their initial address to the African Commission. This is one reason why the African Commission will not expunge the submissions on the Merits made by the Complainants. 149. Furthermore, the African Commission believes that it will only insist on the mechanical application of its rules where to do otherwise would occasion substantial injustice to one or both of the parties. The Respondent State has not shown that the non-compliance with Rules 119 (2) & (3) as it were, has caused a travesty of justice in this case or has in any other way adversely affected their rights. The African Commission maintains that the primary duty of all adjudicatory bodies whether national or international, is to ensure that substantial justice and not technical justice, is done to all the parties in a case. The African Commission will therefore not allow technicalities based on perceived procedural irregularities to stand on the course of justice. 150. In view of the above, the African Commission holds that the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent State lacks merits in the circumstances of this case and will therefore discountenance the same. 40