22. Almost six years have lapsed since the expiry of the deadline and no evidence and
arguments have been submitted by the Complainant on the admissibility of the
Communication.
23. In light of the above, the Commission finds that the Complainant has not shown
any interest in prosecuting this Communication and therefore the Commission
does not have sufficient information upon which to determine the admissibility
of the said Communication.
24. The Commission recalls the following jurisprudence which were similarly struck
out for want of diligent prosecution: Communication 612/16: Ahmed
Mohammed Ali Subaie v. The Arab Republic of Egypt; 1 Communication 637/16
and 639/16: Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors (Represented by
Dr. Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4 Ors) v. Arab Republic of Egypt; 2
Communication 544/15: European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and 3
Others v. Egypt; 3 and Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. Togo; 4 and
Communication 623/16: Miles Investments & 2Others v. Republic Q( Sierra
Leone. 5
'-
-~
�ff"�.)_
�-,};����,
.. ��.
25. In the light of the analysis made above, the Commission decides �o, stri!s� o Jnj;
Communication against the Arab Republic of Egypt, for .- w,aq;i. .. ij:fge' t
Decision of the Commission on Strike Out
'<1,,_ -�.)-0
\�
•. '7,i,,. 1C4/Nt oE.S
prosecution.
:,�\."'s
Communication 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. The Arab Republic of Egypt (2017) ACHPR
Communication 637/16 and 639/16 Mr. Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors (Represented by Dr.
Abdel Hay Faramawy and 4 Ors) v Arab Republic of Egypt (2019) ACHPR
3
Communication 544/15 European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and 3 Others v. Egypt (2018) ACHPR
4
Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. Togo (2015) ACHPR
5
Communication 623/16: Miles Investments & 2Others v. Republic of Sierra Leone (2020) ACHPR
1
2
5
r..