Merits Preliminary Objection by the Respondent State 37. Both the Complainants’ and the Respondent State did not adhere strictly to the timeframes provided for by the Commission in accordance with its Rules of Procedure. Notwithstanding, the Commission extended its own deadlines in order to allow both parties submit in accordance with the relevant Rules of Procedure. The Complainants took advantage of these extensions and made their Submissions on Admissibility. However, the Respondent State despite several extensions and accompanying reminders failed to submit. In line with its rule 117(4), the Commission made its decision on the Admissibility of the Communication during its 41st Ordinary Session held from 16 to 30 May 2007, in Accra, Ghana and informed both parties subsequently. 38. The Respondent State raised an objection that the Commission did not hear them during the Admissibility stage. According to the Respondent State, the procedure leading to the decision on Admissibility therefore lacked legitimacy. The Commission had erred in sending conflicting information to the state regarding the status of the Communication. This error was however corrected in good time after it was discovered. The Commission finds the allegations made by the Respondent State unwarranted since on 12 August 2009, the Respondent State had indicated it was ready to make its submissions on Merits and as such it requested for a further extension of time to ‘enable the government to finalise its submissions.’ This request was granted by the Commission on 6 May 2013. What is more, under the old Rules of Procedure, Rule 117(1) in particular, the Commission had the discretion to fix the time limit for submissions but it should ensure that the matter does not drag for too long. The Respondent State objection also fails to show how the procedure has been contravened in specific detail. The Complainants’ in the view of the Commission have met the technical requirements set in order for the Communication to be admissible. No 11 | P a g e