15. By letter and note verbale dated 23 November 2016 the Complainant and the Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during the 59th Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on admissibility. By the same communication, the Complainant was reminded to submit submissions on admissibility within one (1) month, failing which it would be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution. 16. By letter and note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties that the Communication was deferred during 17. By note verbale dated 02 August 2017 August 2017, the Respondent State indicated that their submissions on admissibility within.1 2 frame and requested thirty (30) days Communication zed of a Communication, it shall request the rguments on Admissibility within two (2) months. 21. Rule 113 pr es that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one (1) month. 22. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date of notification of the seizure decision, which had expired on 28 June 2016. However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within the stipulated time. The said period was extended by the Commission for a period of 30 calendar days and same had expired on the 23 December 2016.