Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Charter he contends that prima facie, his Complaint compels any reasonable person or body to conclude that his human rights have been violated, and coupled with the other elements, the Complaint fulfills the ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci requirements. He accordingly reiterates his prayer that the Communication should be declared admissible. Analysis of the Commission 63. The Commission notes that the Complainant did not expressly address admissibility in what was supposed to be his initial admissibility submissions received at the Secretariat on 18 December 2012. In every aspect the submissions of that date address the merits of the Communication. Indeed the Complainant expressly states that the submissions are meant "to show that the Respondent [State] has violated Article 3 . . . 7 . . . and 26 . . . of the Charter". It is only in retrospect that the Complainant addresses admissibility for the first time in his reply (paragraph 55 above). 64. It is pertinent to remark that a reply under Rule 105(3) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure normally marks the close of written submissions. In this regard a reply is not supposed to address new points for the first time. I t is therefore apposite that Complainants must address all the admissibility requirements in their initial submissions, so that the Respondent State's observations are as comprehensive as it elects, and Complainant's replies are in turn focused on the State's observations. In the present case the Complainant addresses admissibility in his reply. The Commission considers that this was purely out of unfamiliarity with the procedure before the Commission as the Complainant indeed indicated as early as in his seizure letter in which he specifically requested for directions. This request was regrettably not specifically addressed. In the circumstances it became necessary for the reply to be transmitted to the Respondent State for its further observations (see paragraph 43 above). The Respondent State did not file any further observations. 65. Further, the Commission has noticed that the Senior Puisne Judge (SPJ) who later became the Chief Justice (CJ) at the time of the impugned events and whose acts and decisions form substantial parts of the Complaint is a member of this Commission. He is also a national of the Respondent State. The Commission would like to put it on record that the member in question has at no point and · O" "'4 .� ............ ,. 111 4 circumstances been involved in the consideration of this Communicati ..,. fhls�s 1?,4 ; "}�. A Page 13 of 45 Afnr,a,1r Urnori-..; African Commissicn on Human and P ' 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombe West Coast R Phone: (220) 230 4361 F-ax: ( Email: au-banjul@a ,,, .;,,� ..,0 https:1achpr.a , '/ �/