th nd 13. At its 24 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 22 to 31st October, the th Commission postponed consideration of the communication to the 25 Ordinary Session. th 14. On 20 January 1999, the Secretariat dispatched letters to the parties notifying them of the decision. th 15. At its 25 Ordinary Session held in Bujumbura, Burundi, the Commission postponed th consideration of the communication to the 26 Ordinary Session due to lack of time. th 16. On 13 May 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission notified the parties of this decision. th 17. At its 26 Ordinary Session held in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission declared the communication admissible and requested for arguments on the merits of the case. 18. On 21st January 2000, the Secretariat of the Commission informed the parties of the decision. th 19. The matter was also taken up on 10 March 2000, by the Legal Officer at the Secretariat in a meeting with Mrs Tomasi and Mr Almami Taal, State Counsel in the Department of State for Justice, The Gambia, concerning communication 219/98. The State Counsel promised to meet the State Party's obligation as requested. 20. The Complainant responded to the Commission's request for arguments on the merits of the th case on 12 April 2000. th 21. On 17 April 2000, the Complainant's brief was forwarded to the State Party for its information and necessary action. th 22. At its 27 Ordinary Session held in Algeria, the Commission deferred consideration of the case to the next session and requested the respondent state to furnish the Secretariat with its submission on the merits of the case. th 23. The above decision was communicated to parties on 10 July 2000. The Secretariat is yet to receive the Respondent State’s response. th 24. At its 28 Ordinary Session in Benin, the African Commission reviewed the case and decided to th re-examine its admissibility at the 29 Ordinary Session. The Commission also decided to examine the merits of the case at the said session. th 25. On 14 November 2000, the Secretariat wrote to the Respondent State informing it the decision th taken at the 28 Ordinary Session and reminded it to furnish the Commission with arguments on both admissibility and merits of the case and, in particular, on the facts implicating state obligation under the African Charter. th 26. On 14 November 2000, the Secretariat also wrote to the complainant informing it of the decision th taken at the 28 Ordinary Session and requested it to furnish the Commission with more arguments on the merits of the case and, in particular, on the facts implicating state obligation under the African Charter. 27. On 21st March 2001, the Secretariat of the African Commission received submissions from the Complainant as earlier requested. 28. On 3st April 2001, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant acknowledging receipt of the said submissions. th 29. On 17 April 2001, the Secretariat received submissions on admissibility from the Respondent State. th 30. At its 29 Ordinary Session, the Commission heard submissions from the representatives of the Complainant and the Respondent State. Law Admissibility 31. In its brief, AFLA claims: “ (The) State authorities were made aware of the Complainant’s situation”. The following statements apparently support this: “In doing so they communicated the situation of the Complainant to the authorities in The Gambia and in Malawi. The African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies intervened to draw the attention of the Gambian authorities to the circumstances of Mr Banda, to no avail”. Who these authorities are is not indicated. When the communication was made is also not stated. Those bare assertions of the Complainant that a