admissibility, and ending with the Complainant’s comments on the Respondent State’s written arguments. These are provided for with strict deadlines, subject to a single possible extension not exceeding one month in terms of Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure. 57. In accordance with Rule 105 (4), any further observations may only be presented at an oral hearing as may be allowed by the African Commission under Rule 88(6) of the Rules of Procedure. 58. The African Commission would like to affirm that it does not espouse a relaxed approach in the application of its Rules of Procedure. Among the objects of its Rules of Procedure regarding Communications generally and submission of written arguments in particular is to ensure that parties are accorded equal, fair and adequate opportunity to present their respective positions, and that alleged violations or any matters that are in contention between the parties are clearly identified and determined expeditiously and conclusively. 59. Whereas the Rules of Procedure constitute a comprehensive code designed to achieve among others, the above objects, the Commission retains the prerogative to permit or require further written submissions outside the strict stipulations in the Rules of Procedure and in place of an oral hearing. However, the Commission would only do so in extremely exceptional circumstances in respect of which it does not even find it desirable to enunciate criteria. For all purposes, parties are well advised to strictly adhere to the provisions of its Rules of Procedure. The Commission will not hesitate to impose necessary procedural sanctions for default such as declining to consider a given submission that does not comply with the Rules of Procedure and acceptable practice. 60. In the present Communication, the Commission indeed allowed the Respondent State to file its Reply on Admissibility by way of observations on the Complainant’s Response to the State’s Arguments on Admissibility. The Commission considered, among others, that the Complainant’s own second observations are more voluminous than his initial arguments on admissibility, in the process raising multiple new points, introducing three new expert declarations, and citing various new sources in support of the observations. 61. In addition, it is the Complainant’s own manner of submitting arguments and supporting evidence that partly led to the escalation of written submissions for both parties. Among others, the Complainant omitted to attach some critical evidence to his initial arguments on admissibility and only provided the relevant evidence upon 10