51. The Commission consider the propriety of the Complainant’s post-hearing written observations and declined to have recourse to them for purposes of its decision on admissibility as this amounted to reopening arguments which had been closed upon the oral hearing. The Complainant was informed accordingly by letter dated 15 November 2013 referenced ACHPR/COMM/383/10/DJI/1274/13. 52. Lastly, on 20 November 2013 the Respondent State wrote the Commission objecting to the further submissions purported to be filed by the Complainant on 4 November 2013. The Respondent State went further to make its own observations on the Complainant’s post-hearing submissions. The Commission declined to consider the Respondent State’s post-hearing observations for the same reasons stated at paragraph 51 above. Objections on procedure and the Commission’s decision Complainant’s Objections to the Respondent State’s additional written arguments 53. In what was intended to be his last submissions on admissibility, the Complainant objects to the Respondent State’s Reply on Admissibility. The Complainant contends that the Respondent State’s Reply on Admissibility amounts to an abuse of process and is contrary to Rule 105 of Rules of Procedure. Accordingly he prays that the Reply and the supporting evidence must be disregarded by the Commission in arriving at its decision on admissibility. Respondent State’s Submission on the Complainant’s Objection 54. For its part, the Respondent State addresses the Complainant’s objection in its ‘Observations on the Complainant’s Final Response on Admissibility and New Facts’ which was yet another written submission. The Respondent State observes that its Reply on Admissibility was specifically allowed upon request by the Commission. Accordingly the Respondent State maintains that it’s Reply on Admissibility and the supporting affidavits should not and cannot be disregarded. The African Commission’s Analysis and Decision on the Objections 55. The African Commission would like to observe that the procedure adopted in this Communication with respect to parties’ written arguments represents an extremely exceptional departure from its Rules of Procedure, in particular Rule 105. 56. Rule 105 (2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure provides for the parties to submit a total of three written submissions starting with the Complainant’s arguments on admissibility, followed by the Respondent State’s arguments on 9