the Complainant when they failed to make submissions regarding the issue of previous settlement of the Communication. 24. The Respondent State further alleges bias on the part of the Commission by citing two main reasons; first that the Commissioner spearheading the Communication who is also the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information conducted a campaign against Eritrea when she wrote a preface, endorsed the contents of and gave welcoming remarks at the launch of the report entitled “The Erosion of the Rule of Law in Eritrea: Silencing Freedom of Expression “on the margins of the Commission’s 56th Session on 21 April 2015, in Banjul the Gambia. The Respondent State argues that in so doing, the Commissioner negatively influenced the outcome of the Communication and violated the principle of confidentiality. 25. The Respondent State also argues that the matter has been politicised and can no longer be the subject of adjudication as it was declared at the launch that, “it seems that the legal proceedings are not yielding any result…the Commission should, in its next activity report, urge the AU Assembly, to take appropriate measures, as allowed for under Article 23(2) of the AU Constitutive Act to exert further political pressure on Eritrea”. 26. The Respondent State concludes by submitting that the Commission should take all these matters under consideration and dismiss the case. The Complainant’s Observations on the Preliminary Objection 27. In its response, the Complainant indicates that the Commission’s decision on Admissibility already addressed the Respondent State’s objection hence the Objection amounted to a re-trial of the case. In respect of the Respondent State’s allegation that the matter has been politicised, the Complainant argued that the Respondent State’s suggestion that the Honourable Commission during a side event at the 56th Ordinary Session in April 2015 urged the "AU Assembly to take appropriate measures" against Eritrea was incorrect as it came from one of the panellists and not a member of the Commission. It attributes this error on the part of the Respondent Stat to the absence of the respected Delegates from the Republic of Eritrea from the actual panel discussion. The Commission’s analysis On the allegation of the Honourable Commissioner’s bias on the matter