being prompted by the Commission. By the time the Complainant submitted the omitted evidence, the Respondent State had already filed its Arguments on Admissibility. This led the Commission to transmit the Complainant’s missing evidence to the Respondent State with a request to submit its observations thereon which ordinarily would have been canvassed in the Respondent State’s initial arguments. The Respondent State’s observations on the omitted documents are contained in its Supplemental Arguments. 62. Further, whereas close to a year elapsed between the time the Complainant’s Arguments on Admissibility were received by the Secretariat and the time the Respondent State filed its arguments on admissibility, the Complainant subsequently also took about four months to submit his observations, contrary to the one month allowed under Rule 105(3) of the Rules of Procedure. As noted above, even when the Complainant eventually submitted, he then introduced substantial new points and supporting materials, a trend which continued for both parties until after the oral hearing. 63. Even more, subsequent to the contested Respondent State’s Reply, both parties submitted further observations making the total number of written exchanges escalate to eleven with the very last two having been rejected by the Commission for being an abuse of process. 64. At all times the Commission endeavoured to avert the possibility of an oral hearing. As it turned out, however, an oral hearing was still held. 65. The Commission is satisfied that considering the intricacy and relevance of the matters contested in the present Communication, both parties were unprecedentedly and unusually accorded more than ample, equal and fair opportunity to present their respective positions culminating in the oral hearing held during the 54th Ordinary Session. 66. Accordingly, although the Complainant’s objection is prima facie valid in terms of Rule 105 of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission confirms that it has, as a measure of exception, allowed the Respondent State’s Reply. The Commission has thus considered all written arguments of both parties presented after the contested Respondent State’s Reply. In its consideration, the Commission has however excluded both parties’ written arguments and supporting evidence submitted after the oral hearing. 11