Furthermore, the Respondent State states that under its law, no one can be deported without first being given an opportunity to challenge his expulsion. 85. Concerning post-facto remedies, the Respondent State states that criminal local remedies are available including against state agents, referring to Articles 382 and 383 which criminalises detention or sequestration of another person by any person. In this regard, its states that after receiving this Communication it conducted an investigation, but the same could not even establish that the Complainant was ever in Djibouti let alone any evidence to warrant prosecution. It further states that the Complainant remains at liberty to furnish the Djiboutian authorities with further evidence that would establish his presence in Djibouti and the alleged mistreatment he suffered at the hands of Djiboutian state agents, in which case a criminal investigation would be reopened. 86. Similarly, it states that civil remedies are available both under its Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 6, 8 and 9 thereof) and under the Code of Civil procedure, including against state agents. It maintains that the Complainant is at liberty to pursue them even from outside as his physical presence is not a prerequisite under Djiboutian law. 87. The Respondent State thus maintains that the Complainant did not exhaust local remedies which are available, efficient and sufficient before he resorted to the Commission with this Communication. 88. Lastly, the Respondent State argues that the Communication was not submitted within reasonable time as more than three years elapsed from either the time he became aware in 2004 of his alleged detention and mistreatment in Djibouti or from the time he was eventually released from custody in 2006. It argues that the time taken before presenting this Communication is excessive and contrary to Article 56(6) of the African Charter. For the foregoing reasons the Respondent State prays that the Communication must be declared inadmissible entirely. 3. Respondent State’s Supplemental Arguments on Admissibility 89. The Respondent State submitted further arguments being observations on two pieces of supporting evidence accidentally omitted by the Complainant when filing his initial arguments on admissibility. The documents were a stamped copy of the alleged Departure Declaration Card that had been tendered by the State in the habeas corpus proceedings before the High Court of the Republic of Tanzania, and the ruling on the habeas corpus application. These documents form part of the 16