and ascertaining questions of fact and law, that could possibly have been provided, raised, and/or invoked by the Respondent State. It is important to mention at the outset that the Guidelines for the Consideration of Communications explicitly provide that the absence of a party shall not necessarily hinder the consideration of a communication. Admissibility Complainants’ submission on admissibility 15. The current communication is submitted pursuant to Article 44 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child which allows the African Committee to receive and consider communications from “any person, group or nongovernmental organization…”.The Guidelines for the Consideration of Communications provides, under Chapter II Article 1, that the admissibility of a communication submitted pursuant to Article 44 is subject to around seven conditions relating to form and content. 16. The Complainants submitted, in a submission dated 6th November 2009, that the authors of the Communication have been identified and relevant details of the Communication have been provided to the Committee, it is written and it is against a State Party to the African Children’s Charter. The Complainants submitted that the Communication is compatible with the provisions of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as well as with the African Children’s Charter, that the Communication is not exclusively based on information circulated by the media, and that the same issue has not been considered according to another international procedure. In addition, the Complainants submitted that the Communication is submitted within a reasonable period of time and that the Communication is not written in an offensive language. 17. A more detailed explanation is provided by the Complainants in relation to the requirement to “…exhaust all appeal channels at the national level…”.In this regard, the Complainants submitted that they have undertaken a number of efforts to exhaust local remedies for a period of seven years in order to resolve the issue of lack of citizenship of the Nubian community. 18. The Complainants submit that in 2002 the Nubian community, through the Kenyan Nubian Council of Elders, instructed the Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE) to institute legal proceedings against the Kenyan Government. On 17th March 2003 an action was commenced in the High Court of Kenya by way of an urgent application that led to a leave to file a class action suit on behalf of the Nubian community. 19. However, the Complainants indicate that, even though CEMIRIDE filed the substantial constitutional application the same day in the High Court in Nairobi, numerous procedural obstacles have since been raised which have stalled the case. These obstacles reportedly include how on 8 July 2003 a certain Justice of the High Court declined to transmit the file to the Chief Justice on the ground that it was necessary to ascertain the identity of the 100,000 applicants; how another Justice of the High Court subsequently agreed that such a process to ascertain was unreasonable and fixed a date for a hearing of the merits of the case for the 7th of June 2004; but later on how, on the 7th of June 2004, again another Justice declined to hear the application and referred it back to the duty judge for directions on grounds that there were contradictory orders in the file. 4