or differential application of the Rule of Law”; taking an unreasonably long time to dispose of Appeals filed in the Court of Appeal to delay exhaustion of local remedies; dismissing cases without delving into the merits and thereby depriving the Complainant and his clients of access to justice and triggering a continuous wave of appeals, which appeals are expensive and time consuming in view of the case backlog of about eight (8) years in the Court of Appeal; unreasonably delaying delivery of Judgment and Rulings to disorient the Complainant and his clients and to keep them anxiously waiting sometimes for years without knowing the outcome of litigation; threatening and intimidating the Complainant [without any lawful basis] with arrest and imprisonment; and ensuring that nearly allthe Complainant's cases are delayed or defeated by using all tricks or means available, regardless of their merit, with the objective of ultimately crippling or grounding the Complainant's legal practice. 35. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that by dismissing his complaints or altogether refusing to act on them, the concerned agencies of the Respondent State reduced the noble constitutional process of vetting of Judicial officers into a gimmick or a mere public relations exercise and. thereby hoodwinked on judicial reforms. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 36. The Commission recalls that Article of the African Charter sets out seven requirements that a Communication brought under Article 55 of the African Charter must satisfy in order to be Admissible, which apply conjunctively and cumulatively. 37, Despite the fact that the Commission requested the Respondent State to submit its arguments and evidence on.admissibility in accordance with Rule 105(2), no response has been received, In such cases the Commission has held that in the absence of a response from the, Respondent State, it must decide on the facts provided by the Complainant.? However, the Commission also notes that the Complainant only submitted arguments on the admissibility of the Communication with regards to Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Commission in its jurisprudence has held that in such cases it will still examine the admissibility of a Communication in respect of 5 The Complainant gives twenty-seven examples of how the Kenyan judiciary has denied him access to effective local remedies, which are not reproduced here in full. . © See Communication 304/2005 - FIDH & Others v. Senegal (2006) ACHPR, para 38. 7 See Communication 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93 (1995) ACHPR, para 40. See also Communication 60/91, Communication 159/1996, Communication 276/03 and Communication 292/04. cy 7 eTaR TORN PF PaepoReTARar oN