94. The Respondent State contends that this procedure deprives it from properly addressing the issues raised by the Complainants as it was not availed a copy of the Complainants’ submission prior to the Respondent State making its own submission. In the words of the Respondent State “it prejudices Botswana greatly in that the applicant has effectively been afforded an undue opportunity to strengthen his case, to the extent that the submissions filed by him raise very many new matters of fact and law which our arguments, as is to be expected, do not deal with”. The Respondent State concluded that the Complainants’ supplementary submissions on the merits be purged off the record. 95. Referring to Rule 119 of the African Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the State maintains that it was supposed to have submitted first and the Complainants given the opportunity to reply within a time fixed by the Commission, in accordance withRule 119 (3). 96. The Commission will thus, first deal with the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent State before proceeding to make a determination on the merits of the communication. African Commission’s decision on the preliminary objection 97. In the present communication, after declaring the case admissible at the Commission’s st th 41 Ordinary Session, the Secretariat, by Note Verbale of 20 June 2007, and letter of the same date, informed both parties and requested them to submit their arguments on the merits within three months th from the date of notification. On 5 October 2007, the Secretariat received the Complainants’ th submissions on the merits of the communication. On 12 October 2007, the Secretariat received the nd Respondent State’s submissions on the merits. On 22 October 2007, the Secretariat forwarded the submissions of the Respondent State to the Complainants, and the Complainants to the Respondent State. 98. The purpose of requiring parties to make submissions to the Commission is so that they appreciate the concerns of each other and try to address them as best as they can. That is why the Commission adopted Rules of Procedure governing, among other things, the receipt and consideration of communications. 99. Rule 119 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure seek to guide the Commission regarding the procedure to adopt after a communication has been declared admissible. In terms of Rule 119 (1) “if the Commission decides that a communication is admissible…its decision and text of the relevant documents shall as soon as possible, be submitted to the State Party concerned…The author of the communication shall also be informed of the Commission’s decision…”. Rule 119 (2) provides further that the State Party “… shall within the ensuing three months, submit in writing to the Commission, …measures it was able to take to remedy the situation”. 100. From the above two paragraphs of Rule 119, it is the view of the Commission that when a communication is declared admissible, both parties must be notified of the decision. While the African Charter obliges the Commission to submit its decisions and other relevant texts relating to its decision on admissibility to the State Party, it simply requires the Commission to inform the author of the communication. This presupposes that the Respondent State is the one that is expected to make submissions on the merits, to, in the words of the Charter, provide “explanations or statements elucidating the issue under consideration and indicating, if possible, measures it was able to take to remedy the situation”. 101. This interpretation is supported when one turns to Rule 119 (3) which provides that ‘all explanations or statements submitted by a State Party pursuant to the present Rule shall be communicated… to the author of the communication, who may submit in writing additional information and observations within a time limit fixed by the Commission’. 102. It is clear from the above, that after declaring a communication admissible, both parties are informed of the decision, but the Respondent State is further requested to make submissions on the matter being considered. After the State would have submitted, then the submission is availed to the author of the communication for his/her comments. The Respondent State seems to be satisfied that th the Note Verbale of 20 June inviting it to make submissions on the merits “was the correct step”. 103. However, the Respondent State contends that if the Complainants were also invited to make submissions on the merits“that was a defective step and clearly the Commission will be guilty of breaking its own procedural rules”.