Complaint 7. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 17, 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Procedure 8. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Secretariat) received the communication by letter of 29 March 2005. The Commission decided to be seized of the th th th communication at its 37 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 27 April to 11 May 2005. th 9. On 18 May 2005 the Respondent State was informed of the seizure and it was requested to submit its arguments on admissibility. 10. The Complainant was also informed of the seizure and requested to submit its arguments on admissibility. th 11. By a letter of 4 August 2005, the Secretariat received the Complainant’s arguments on th admissibility, to which receipt of acknowledgement was sent on 25 August 2005. th 12. The arguments on admissibility were also sent to the Respondent State on 25 August 2005. th 13. On 14 November 2005, a letter was sent to the Respondent State party urging it to submit its arguments on admissibility. 14. The Respondent State submitted its written observations on the admissibility of the th communication during the 38 Ordinary Session. th st th 15. At its 38 Ordinary Session held from 21 November to 5 December 2005 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered this communication and deferred its decision on th admissibility to the 39 Ordinary Session. th 16. By a note verbale of 15 December 2005, the Secretariat notified the Respondent State of this th decision to defer decision on admissibility to its 39 Ordinary Session. th 17. By a letter of 15 December 2005, the Complainant was likewise notified. th th th 18. At its 39 Ordinary Session held from 11 to 25 May 2006 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the communication and deferred consideration of the same to its th 40 Ordinary Session. The Commission indicated that the Complainant’s allegation of ‘serious and massive’ human rights violation by the Respondent State merits a hearing before the African Commission as per the latter’s established practice. th 19. At its 40 Ordinary Session, the African Commission considered the communication and deferred th its decision on admissibility to the 41 Ordinary Session. 20. During the same session, the Secretariat received the additional written submissions of the Respondent State’s admissibility. nd th th 21. At its 42 Ordinary Session held in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, from 15 to 28 November 2007, the Commission considered the communication and deferred its consideration of the same to its rd 43 Ordinary Session to allow the Secretariat to draft a decision on admissibility. 22. During the same session, the Secretariat received additional written submissions of the Respondent State’s admissibility which were forwarded to the Complainant. Law Admissibility Submissions by the Complainant 23. The Complainant submits that the communication raises a prima facie violation of the Charter and meets the conditions of admissibility in terms of Article 56 of the Charter.

Select target paragraph3