Tiéoulé Diarra vs Côte d'Ivoire and decided to defer its decision while waiting for the Complainants' response to the proposed amicable settlement initiated by the Respondent State. 16. On 30 April 2008, the Complainants sent to the Secretariat of the Commission a letter indicating that they accepted the proposal of the Respondent State for a compromise settlement, on the condition that the Respondent State offers prior technical guarantees for such a settlement. 17. Between July 2008 and 14 August 2012, the Secretariat sent more than 5 letters reminding the parties, in particular the Complainants, to provide the Commission with information on the progress made regarding the negotiations conducted by the Government of Côte d'Ivoire towards an amicable settlement. 18. By a letter dated 14 August 2012 that was sent to the Complainants, the Secretariat reiterated its request for information on the progress made regarding the negotiations conducted by the Government of Côte d'Ivoire towards an amicable settlement of the present communication. The Secretariat also stated that if there is no response from the Complainants within one month, that is, by 14 September 2012, the Commission would be obliged to strike out the communication for lack of diligent prosecution. Analysis of the Commission 19. Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission stipulates that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension which shall not exceed one (1) month. 20. To date, the Complainants have not responded to the requests of the Secretariat of the Commission, including the one dated 14 August 2012, and have still not provided information on developments regarding the amicable settlement initiated by the Respondent State. They have also not requested any extension of the deadline in order to provide this information. 21. Given the prolonged and unjustified lack of response from the Complainants, the Commission has decided to take a decision on the matter. Decision of the Commission 22. In view of the foregoing, the Commission, with seven Commissioners for and two against, finds that there is a lack of interest on the part of the Complainants and decides to strike out the communication for lack of diligent prosecution. Done at the 52nd Ordinary Session of the Commission held from 9 to 22 October 2012 in Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire. Dissenting Opinions of Commissioner Catherine Dupe Atoki and Commissioner Pansy Tlakula When considering the issue of striking out Communication 289/2004 - Mr Brahima Koné and Mr Tiéoulé Diarra vs Côte d'Ivoire, the members of the Commission did not reach a consensus, with seven Commissioners for and two against. Commissioner Catherine Dupe Atoki and Commissioner Pansy Tlakula held a different opinion from that of the majority of the Commissioners that the communication should be struck out. They were of the view that given that there is no available information on the progress made regarding an amicable settlement, the Commission, instead of striking out the Communication, ought to request the parties to submit their observations on admissibility and continue to consider the Communication. 2

Select target paragraph3