10. Having received no reply from the Respondent State, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission sent it a reminder on 10th February 2003 drawing its attention to the fact that its written submissions on the case should reach the [African] Commission as early as possible to allow the [African] Commission take a decision on admissibility of the case. The Secretariat is yet to receive a reaction from the Respondent State. 11. On 20th October 2002, the Complainant sent a letter to the [African] Commission requesting it to defer consideration of the communication to allow her to acquire more information on the case from the victims' lawyers. 12. On 2nd October 2002, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission acknowledged receipt of the Complainant's request for deferment, and informed her that in accordance with her request consideration of the communication would be deferred until the 35th Ordinary Session of the [African Commission]. 13. At its 34th Ordinary Session held in November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission formally decided to defer its decision on the admissibility of the complaint, in accordance with the request of the Complainant. 14. By Note Verbale ACHPR/COMM 2258/2002 [of] 15/11/2003, the Secretariat of the African Commission handed to the delegation of Cameroon participating at the 34th Session a copy of the said complaint. The Note Verbale further requested Cameroon to convey its comments with regard to the admissibility of the matter within three months and in any case before end February 2004, to enable the [African] Commission to make a well informed ruling on the communication at its 35th Ordinary Session. 15. On the 17/02/2004, the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Cameroon sent a letter to the African Commission in which the Respondent State intimated that Mr Ndeh Ningo had been acquitted and freed in November 2003, "for lack of criminal charges" whilst Mr Takang Philip had been freed in March 2003 "for non-proven facts". 16. Extracts of the judgement letter indicated the acquittal and liberation of the two individuals as well as the respective arrest warrants which had been attached to the documents mentioned earlier. 17. The Respondent State therefore requested the [African] Commission to declare the communication inadmissible "in view of the presentation of the above mentioned documents, which sufficiently prove that the two cases had been submitted to the legal authorities of Cameroon and had been dealt with". 18. On the 01/03/2004 the Secretariat of the African Commission, through its Note Verbale ACHPR/COMM 258/02 acknowledged receipt of the Note Verbale from the Respondent State. 19. By letter ACHPR/COMM 258/02/RK of the 01/03/2003, the Secretariat of the African Commission had conveyed the Note Verbale to the Complainant requesting her reaction on the contents of the letter. 20. On the 14/04/2004, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat of the African Commission to confirm the liberation of Mr Ndeh Ningo who had been "judged not guilty and freed on the 23/11/2003 after having spent 4 years in detention". 21. The Complainant indicated in her letter that Mr Ndeh Ningo would advise the [African] Commission on whether or not he would pursue the matter at the level of the [African] Commission. The Complainant further mentioned the possibility of holding negotiations with the Respondent State to obtain compensation for Mr Ndeh Ningo. For this reason the Complainant requested the African Commission to kindly defer its decision on the admissibility of the communication until its 36th Ordinary Session and not to declare it inadmissible as per the request of the Respondent State. 22. During its 35th Ordinary Session held from 21st May to 4th June 2004 in Banjul, The Gambia, the [African] Commission considered the communication and declared it inadmissible. Law Admissibility 23. Article 56 of the African Charter provides inter alia that communications shall be considered by the [African] Commission after exhausting local remedies, unless this procedure is unduly prolonged. 24. In the case under consideration, the African Commission notes that the alleged victims were tried and freed in March and November 2003 respectively. This fact was admitted both by the Complainant and Respondent State. 25. The African Commission took note of the fact that the case was brought to the African Commission at the time that the matter was still before the courts. Furthermore, the fact that the case was tried properly before a court of law shows the availability of local remedies. 2