The Complainant’s Supplementary Submissions on Admissibility 47. Regarding the Katabazi case which was before the East African Court of Justice, the Complainants aver that this Reference initially bore the names of all the 22 Peoples Redemption Army (PRA) suspects; however for personal reasons both Mr. Samson Agupio and Mr. Patrick Okiring withdrew instructions and their participation before the East African Court, and opted to give their consent to the Complainants to bring their complaint before the African Commission. The Complainants note that, as testament and evidence of this fact, the consent and authorization forms of the Victims were submitted to the Commission. 48. Additionally, the Complainants contend that, notwithstanding the title naming all 22 suspects, the Court’s Judgment explicitly states that the reference was brought by sixteen persons, of which Mr. Samson Agupio and Mr. Patrick Okiring were not party. Accordingly, the Complainants submit that the arguments by the Respondent State alleging that the Victims were parties to the Reference before the East African Court of Justice were erroneous and misleading. 49. The Complainants further aver that the Complaint before the Commission was in relation to the actions of state actors which constitute violations of the African Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which is different from the reference brought before the East African Court of Justice, as this Court would not have jurisdiction to hear complaints against violations of the Charter and Constitutive Act by a Member State. Oral Submissions The Complainants’ Oral Submissions 50. In oral submissions, the Complainants reiterated their written submissions, stating that the Communication was submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Charter: specifically the Complaint was submitted in a respectful manner and nonabusive language; the complaint related to violations of the Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Complainants averred that all available local remedies had been exhausted, however the Respondent State had not heeded the orders issued by the Constitutional and High Court in various decisions handed down. The Complainants reiterated that the Communication was thus admissible before the Commission. The Respondent State’s Oral Submissions 51. The Respondent State, in turn, reiterated its assertion on the exhaustion of local remedies. It was observed that, under Article 23(6) of the Constitution, a person arrested in respect of a criminal case is entitled to apply to court to be released on bail. The Respondent State made reference to the UHRC, noting its powers and functions, as established under Article 52 and 53 of the Constitution, and noting that 8