Q:.. i"'�,- ACHPR · mum • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Complainant's reply 59. In reply, the Complainant first highlights that the Respondent State does not advance any observations quoad his conviction by the Intermediate Court as restored by the JCPC. 60. Regarding exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainant maintains that the decision of the five-member bench delivered on 1 July 2011 and the refusal by the JCPC to entertain an appeal against that decision mean that local remedies have been exhausted with regard to the right to initiate proceedings in person. He further contends that it is plainly wrong for the Respondent State to rely on the entirely different case of Devendranath v N Devat and others, as the issue in that case was not about instituting proceedings in person, but continuance of proceedings duly commenced through an attorney who then dies while the case is pending. 61. Further, he states that the decision of the five-member bench of the Supreme Court of 1 July 2011 could not have been appealed to the Court of Appeal. He avers that the Supreme Court exercised its original first instance civil jurisdiction when it delivered the ruling of July 1, 2011. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court is constituted by one judge when disposing of matters at first instance. The CJ may however decide that any case should be heard by two or three judges sitting at first instance depending on the magnitude of interests at stake or the importance or intricacy of the questions of fact or law involved. Appeals from decisions of the Supreme Court exercising first instance jurisdiction lie to the Court of Appeal, which is a division of the Supreme Court and judges of the Supreme Court also sit as judges of the Court of Appeal, except the judge(s) who sat in the court a quo. The Court of Appeal is constituted by two or three judges. He contends that the July 1, 2011 ruling having been delivered by a five-member bench of the Supreme Court sitting at first instance, an appeal could not lie to a two- or three-member Court of Appeal to revisit the issue. He submits that there was therefore no further remedy to be exhausted, and therefore Article 56(5) of the Charter has been satisfied. 62. Furthermore, in retrospect, the Complainant addresses the other admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the Charter. He avers that he submitted the present Communication within a reasonable time after exhausting local remedies in compliance with Article 56(6) of the Charter. He states that he has discl . .-!A�=:::::::,..... identity in terms of Article 56(1) of the Charter. In relation to Article 56 Page 12 of 45 0 ..., African Commission on Human and Peop!is• Ai (°)" J 31 Bijilo Annex Layout. Kombo No West Coast Regi I Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (22 Email: au-banjul@africa- � � ; � f I 1. f.." � ;: .,,·: : · ·; i