21.
The Commission considered the Communication at its 50th Ordinary Session
held from 24 October to 5 November 2011 and decided to defer its decision on
admissibility to the 51st Ordinary Session, pending the Respondent State’s
submission of observations on admissibility.
22.
On
30
January
2012
by
a
Note
Verbale
referenced:
ACHPR/LPROT/COMM/383/10/83.12 the Secretariat reminded the Respondent
State to submit its arguments on admissibility.
23.
By letter dated 19 March 2012 the Complainant requested an oral hearing on
admissibility during the 51st Ordinary Session of the Commission.
24.
On 10 April 2012 the Secretariat received the Respondent State’s Arguments
on Admissibility dated 3 April 2012 together with supporting evidence comprised
of the Affidavit of Mr. Djama Souleiman Ali, the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of
Djibouti; and Exhibits to the Affidavit.
25.
By
letter
dated
11
April
2012
and
referenced
ACHR/COMM/DJI/383/10/300/12 the Secretariat informed the Complainant that
the consideration of the Communication on admissibility was deferred from the 51st
Ordinary Session to the 52nd Ordinary Session in order to accommodate the request
for oral hearing which had been submitted late for the 51st Ordinary Session.
26.
By
further
letter
dated
12
July
2012
and
referenced
ACHPR/COMM/383/10/597/12 the Secretariat requested the Complainant to
submit two exhibits referred to in his initial written Arguments on Admissibility, to
wit, a stamped copy of a Departure Declaration Card and a Ruling of the High Court
of Tanzania on the habeas corpus proceedings, which had not been submitted together
with the initial arguments.
27.
On 16 July 2012 the Complainant submitted copies of the requested exhibits.
These were transmitted to the Respondent State by Note Verbale dated 19 July 2012
and referenced: ACHPR/COMM/DJI/383/10/614/12, with a further request that
the Respondent State should submit its observations thereon by 20 August 2012.
28.
On 16 August 2012 the Secretariat received the Respondent State’s
Supplemental Arguments on Admissibility being observations on the
Complainant’s two exhibits and three expert declarations (see para. 27 above). The
5