Commission's Decision on Review 79. The Commission accepted the Complainant's request to reconsider its decision on the basis of the submission by the Complainant that the Commission had not addressed itself to its jurisprudence, regarding the exceptions to the exhaustion of local remedies rule, in particular the non-applicability of domestic remedies to situations of massive violation of human rights, as is alleged in this instance. 80. The Commission reconsidered its decision under Rule 118(2) of the African Commission's Rules of Procedure. Rule 118(2) reads as follows: If the Commission has declared a communication inadmissible under the Charter, it may reconsider this decision at a later date if it receives a request for reconsideration. 81. Rule 118(2) does not stipulate the conditions under which the Commission may reconsider its previous decision. The Commission may exercise its discretionary powers to reconsider its decision upon a party moving it, and adducing compelling reasons. The Commission is called upon at all times to protect human and peoples' rights. A decision to reconsider its decision must be aimed at protecting human and peoples' rights. 82. Further to that general principle, a party seeking the reconsideration or review of a decision must show that the Commission failed to take into account the criteria set out in Article 56 of the Charter, or it erred in reaching the decision it did. The review must be based on the same facts as was initially before the Commission. A party cannot introduce new facts or information at the review stage. 83. The Commission has in the past, based on its jurisprudence, held that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies does not hold ".... where it is impractical or undesirable for the Complainants or victim to seize the domestic courts."1 84. Based on the above reasons the Commission reconsidered and departed from its previous decision and considered the parties' submissions on admissibility. Decision on admissibility 85. The admissibility of the communications submitted under the African Charter is governed by Article 56 of the African Charter. Of the seven conditions stipulated by this article, six have been met. The seventh which is Article 56(5), stipulates that: communications shall be considered if they [quote]"are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged... . 86. The Respondent State claims that the Complainant did not exhaust local remedies. It stressed that the Complainant had the right to lodge an appeal against any administrative decision in accordance with Article 20 of the 1996 Code of Administrative Courts, and they could lodge an appeal to 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 to the Federal or Regional Minister. 87. The Complainant submits that the African Commission has held that "the rule of exhausting domestic remedies is the most important condition for admissibility of Communications. There is no doubt therefore, in all communications seized by the African Commission, the first requirement considered concerns the exhausting of local remedies...."2 The Complainant argues that the reason for this rule has been defined by the Commission as a two-fold test. First, it is to give domestic courts an opportunity to decide upon cases before they are brought to an international forum. If a right is not well provided for at the domestic level, there cannot be effective remedies at all.3 88. Second, the Complainant states that the Respondent State should have notice of a human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violation before submitting them to an international tribunal.4 The Complainant submits that the Respondent State was aware of the refugees' situation for years and did not act to protect them. The Complainant alleges that there can be no doubt that the Respondent State Government had been put on notice of the situation giving rise to this communication. Such notice was given by the refugees themselves communicating with the Government; the communications of the refugees' legal representatives with the Government and coverage of the plight of the refugees by the news media. 89. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State responded to these communications by denying any responsibility for the plight of the refugees. The Complainant states that, because of the serious violations of human rights that have occurred, the requirement that the refugees resort to domestic remedies should be deemed waived and the Commission should consider the merits of this 6