necessary for the Commission to take a well informed decision on the admissibility of the case during rd its 33 Session scheduled for May 2003. rd th th 13. During its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15 to 29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the th Commission decided to defer its decision on the admissibility of this communication to its 34 Session, thus granting the verbal request of the delegate of the Respondent State attending the Session for extra time to present its arguments, particularly on the admissibility of the case. 14. The Secretariat of the Commission also gave a copy of the complaint to the delegate of Cote d’lvoire attending the Session. th 15. On 11 June 2003, through its Note Verbale ACPHR/246/2002, the Secretariat sent a copy of the complaint to the Respondent State by DHL, requesting a rapid response, in any case before the end of August 2003 to enable the Commission make a ruling on the admissibility of the case. th 16. The Secretariat also wrote to the Complainant on 11 June 2003 explaining to him the reasons of the postponement of the decision of the Commission on the admissibility of the communication. th th th 17. During its 34 Ordinary Session which was held from the 6 to 19 November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the representatives of the Respondent State made an oral presentation before the Commission and conveyed the substance of their observations on the issue in a written memo to the Secretariat. th th 18. During the 35 Ordinary Session which was held from the 21st May to 4 June 2004 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to declare it admissible. 19. On 21st June 2004, the Secretariat notified the decision of the African Commission to the parties and requested them to submit their submission on merits within 3 months. th rd th 20. At its 36 Ordinary Session, which was held from 23 November to 7 December 2004, in Dakar th Senegal, the African Commission considered the communication and deferred it to the 37 Ordinary Session pending receipt of the arguments of the Respondent State on the merits of the case. th 21. On 20 December 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission notified this decision to the Respondent State and requested its submission on the merits as early as possible. 22. On the same date, a similar letter was sent to the Complainant requesting him to submit, at the earliest, his arguments on the merits of the case. th 23. At its 37 Session, the African Commission, acceding to the request of the respondent Party, deferred its decision on the merits of the Complaint pending receipt of its arguments. This decision rd was conveyed to both Parties on the 3 June 2005. th 24. On 12 September 2005 a reminder was sent to the Respondent State. th 25. On 8 November 2005, the Respondent State forwarded its supplementary submissions on the merits of the complaint. 26. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt of these submissions and conveyed them to the th Complainant on the 10 November 2005. th th 27. At its 38 Ordinary Session which took place from the 21st November to the 5 December 2005 in Banjul, the Gambia, the African Commission considered the complaint and deferred its decision to th the 39 Session. th 28. On the 7 December 2005, the Parties were informed of this decision. 29. At its 41st Ordinary Session held in Ghana in May 2007, the Commission considered the above nd communication and decided to defer it to its 42 Session on the request of the Respondent State who informed the Commission that it had initiated amicable settlement of the matter with the Complainant. th 30. By Note Verbale of 7 July 2007 and by letter of the same date, both parties were notified of the Commission's decision. nd 31. At its 42 Ordinary Session, held in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo the African Commission rd considered the communication and deferred its decision to the 43 Ordinary Session due to confirm from the Complainant whether they were engaged in amicable settlement as suggested by the State. th 32. By Note Verbale of 19 December 2007 and by letter of the same date, both parties to the communication were notified of the Commission’s decision. Law