EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 168 Law no.6/89 of 19 September 1989 created and institutionalized the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic as the supreme body of the Public Prosecution Office and Article 42 of Law no.12/78 of 2 December 1978 provided that: “The fundamental tasks of the Public Prosecution Office are as follows: a) To watch over the observance of legality; b) Oversee the enforcement of the law and other legal norms; c) Control the legality of detentions and compliance with the respective periods”; 63. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the Complainant had opportunities for redress. 64. The Respondent State further submits that the Communication unfortunately presumed at the outset that it was useless to resort to the existing institutions, contrary to what the rest of Mozambique’s citizens had been doing. The Respondent State states that preference was given to unsuitable mechanisms, for instance, the handing of letters to bearers or members of the Executive branch. It argues that disregard of the judiciary, which is the only institution competent to address concerns of the Communication in hand, and the preference for political mechanisms (letters and meetings) have compromised the prime opportunity that the second victim, who, according to the Communication, has visited Mozambique more than once, and his family who are even residents of Mozambique, had to put to the test the efficacy and sufficiency of the remedies available in the country. 65. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that this Communication should be declared Inadmissible on two grounds: 1) Incompetence ratione temporis in light of Article 65 of the African Charter. 2) Non-compliance with the requirement of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Supplementary Submission by the Complainant 66. In response to the Respondent State’s submission, the Complainant states that in general, the African Commission should consider carefully the political situation under which the violations were made. 67. The Complainant therefore comments on two points made by the Respondent State. Firstly, on the Respondent State’s argument that the African Commission is not a competent ratione temporis, the Complainant states that the Respondent State has neither disputed that it inherited the alleged acts and consequences of the previous Government, nor has it offered any reasons or explanation why the alleged violations are continuing.