Communication and its attendant request for the reversal of the decision on Admissibility. 194. The Commission declared the present Communication admissible at its 15th Extra-Ordinary Session, held from 7 to 14 March 2014. 195. In its Merits Submissions, the Respondent State argues that local remedies were not exhausted by the Complainants. It states that the Complainants should have sought remedies either from the Administrative Court or the National Council for Human Rights. 196. While the Commission takes note of the Respondent State’s submissions on exhaustion of local remedies, it is of the view that the Respondent State has not presented new evidence that would alter the decision which the Commission made during the admissibility stage of this Communication (see paragraphs 62 to 72 of this Communication). Moreover, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure do not provide for the review of a decision to declare a Communication admissible. It is also not in the practice of the Commission to reconsider a decision declaring a Communication admissible as highlighted in Zegveld v Eritrea. 29 197. Furthermore, the Commission reiterates the position that it makes rulings on the basis of the facts alleged at the time of submission of a complaint. In the instant Communication, at the time of receipt of the Complaint on 4 March 2011, the Victim was still in detention at El Wadi El Gadid Prison. In light of the above, the Commission declines to revisit its decision on admissibility. The Commission will proceed to determine this Communication on its Merits. Analysis of the Commission on Merits Alleged violation of Article 5 198. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the African Charter. 199. Article 5 of the Charter states that “[e]very individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.” 200. The prohibition of and protection from torture has also evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, and become a fundamental standard in the international arena, whereby states cannot derogate from their responsibility to ensure protection from torture.30 The Complainants contend that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the African Charter in the following regards: 201. 29 30 Communication 250/2002 - Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem v Eritrea (2003) ACHPR para 45. See para 67 of this Communication and footnotes 17 and 18. 29