categories and make a personal decision to resign or appear before the tribunals. Consequently, [the] majority of the judges mentioned opted for early retirement with full benefits as a result. 29. In any case, the Respondent State argues, that the judges had the option within the laws to challenge the process before the High Court should they be aggrieved by it but none of the said judges opted for the judicial remedy. 30. The Respondent State maintains that the domestic legislation of Kenya is in consonance with both the letter and spirit of international law including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and asks the African Commission to declare the communication inadmissible. Reasons given by the Complainant for withdrawing the communication 31. The Complainant wrote to inform the African Commission that they received information that the Registrar and Chief Justice did not authorise the leaking of the names of the implicated judges to the press and that this particular matter was now being investigated by the Judiciary. Furthermore, the issue of a fair trial in light of the publicity created prior to the suspension of the judges had been raised before the tribunals and that the matter was being handled and could end up with the constitutional court of Kenya [sic]. 32. It is for this reason that the Complainant wishes to withdraw the communication. Holding The African Commission takes note of the withdrawal of the communication by the Complainant and for this reason decides to close the file. Done at the 35th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 21st May to 4th June 2004. 3