66. At the 43rd Ordinary Session, which took place from 7th to 22nd May 2008 in Ezulwini, Swaziland, the African Commission deferred the communication to the 44th Ordinary Session, to give the Secretariat enough time to prepare the draft decision on the merits. 67. On 2nd June 20008, the parties were informed of the decision of the African Commission. 68. During the 44th Session held in Abuja, Federal Republic of Nigeria, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to defer it to the 45th session in order to finalise its decision on the merits. 69. By letter and Note Verbale of 23rd January 2009, both the Respondent State and the Complainant were informed of the decision of the Commission. Law Admissibility 70. The African Commission recalls that it declared the communication inadmissible during the 34th Ordinary Session of the Commission. The Complainant filed a request for the reopening of the case during the 35th Ordinary Session. This request was considered during the 36th Ordinary Session. 71. When declaring the communication inadmissible, the African Commission stated the following: Although the parties have not provided the African Commission in writing with further written submissions on the issue of local remedies, the African Commission is in a position to rule on the admissibility of this communication by making reference to the written submissions of the Complainant (received on 13th March 2001) and those of the Respondent State (received during the 30th Ordinary session) as well as the oral submissions submitted by both parties during the 33rd Ordinary Session. 72. The Complainant alleges that there were no effective local remedies against the Government's threat to forcibly repatriate the Ethiopian refugees. The refugees had been denied the right to legal representation during the hearings that were aimed at determining whether there was any risk if they returned to Ethiopia to be tortured or be subjected to inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment. 73. The Complainant submits that the procedure for repatriation agreed to by the UNHCR and Sudan was unacceptable for the following reasons: firstly, the Ethiopian refugees were given no opportunity to make representations during the decision - making process, despite public announcements to this effect. Secondly, most of the interpreters/translators were taken from the Ethiopian Embassy, the country from which the refugees were fleeing and they could therefore have been biased or prejudiced. 74. The Complainant adds that the Respondent State denied visas to the legal representatives of the refugees. By failing to ensure that the refugees were given a fair hearing in matters concerning their human rights under the African Charter, the Respondent State had by doing so denied them the right to access local effective remedies. 75. The Respondent State argued that there had been no complaint against illegal or forced repatriation of Ethiopians, and that this communication does not contain any concrete indication in this regard. The Respondent State acknowledges that it understood the situation in Ethiopia was not favourable to those who feared persecution in their country of origin, but reassured the African Commission that every repatriation procedure in this case followed the principle of the Convention signed between Sudan, Ethiopia, and the UNHCR. 76. Furthermore, the Respondent State submitted that the Complainant neither approached the UNHCR nor any Court or administrative body to rule on any allegations of violation committed during the process of repatriation. The Complainant could have submitted an administrative application or referred the matter to the competent courts available in Sudan. 77. The Respondent State informed the African Commission that Article 20 of the 1996 Code of Administrative Courts gives the Complainant the right to lodge an appeal against any administrative decision. An appeal could have been lodged in the Supreme Court against any administrative decision taken by the President of the Republic, the Federal Council of Ministers, the Government of any region or Federal or Regional Minister. The African Commission notes that the Complainant in this communication makes no mention of any attempt on his part to access the available local remedies in the Respondent State. 78. For the above reasons, the African Commission declares that communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. 5