legal action on behalf of the Complainant has been disbanded and banned by judicial order instigated by the Respondent State. It is also the Complainant's submission that it cannot pursue legal action in the Respondent State because it (the Complainant) has been branded a terrorist organisation since the signing of a 2006 Peace Accord between the Respondent States and elements in Cabinda. 37. As to Article 56 (6) of the African Charter, the Complainants aver that the Communication has been submitted in a timely manner. Lastly, the Complainant submits that the Communication complies with the requirement of Article 56 (7) of the African Charter because the Communication does not deal with a case which has been settled by the Respondent State. The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 38. Article 56 of the African Charter lists seven Admissibility requirements that have to be cumulatively fulfilled for a Communication to be declared Admissible. In the present Communication, while the Complainant has clearly stated its arguments as to why the Communication meets each of the seven requirements stipulated under Article 56, the Respondent State has not made any submission to contest or refute those claims. 39. From the time when the African Commission was seized with the Communication during its 40th Ordinary Session in November 2006 to date, ten (10) reminders were sent to the Respondent State requesting the latter to submit its arguments on Admissibility to no avail.4 40. As the African Commission has stated in the case of the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola5 "in the face of the state's failure to address itself to the complaint filed against it, the African Commission has no option but to proceed with its consideration of the Communication in accordance with its Rules of Procedure." In the same decision, the African Commission re-affirmed its position by ruling that "... it would proceed to consider Communications on the basis of the submission of the Complainants and information at its disposal, even if the State fails to submit."6 41. In the case at hand, the Complainant submits that the Communication complies with all the seven requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter, except the one relating to the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56 (5), for which the Complainant asks for waiver. 42. In the absence of any submissions from the Respondent State to the contrary, the African Commission has considered the Complainant's Submission and is convinced that all the requirements under Article 56, except Article 56(5) are met. The Commission proceeds to consider the legitimacy of the request for waiver based on Article 56(5) of the Charter and relevant jurisprudence. 43. Article 56(5) of the African Charter provides that Communications should be "sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". This requirement is based on the principle that "the respondent state must first have an opportunity to redress by its own means within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual".7 44. The Commission has stressed that the requirement of the exhaustion of local remedies "does not mean that complainants are required to exhaust any local remedy which is found to be, as a practical matter, unavailable or ineffective."8 The jurisprudence of the Commission, in determining compliance with this requirement, sets out "[t]hree major criteria, that is: the local remedy must be available, effective and sufficient."9 45. The initial burden is on the Complainant to prove that they have met the requirement set in Article 56 (5) or that those remedies are unavailable in the particular case. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the Respondent State if it contests the allegations of the former. 46. In the present case, the Complainant avers that it has no legal standing under Angolan law and its representatives would face arrest and possible execution under Angolan national security laws if they try to pursue legal remedies in Angola, adding that members of FLEC are considered terrorists in Angolan territory and hence any attempt to take the case before Angolan courts would be futile, if not impossible, and would subject members of the Complainant organisation to arbitrary arrest, detention or execution as terrorists. 47. The Complainant also submits that the only independent human rights organisation in Cabinda, Mpalabanda, that could have taken their case before a court of law was banned on 20 July 2006 for allegedly inciting violence and hatred, and being involved in political activities. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the principal members of FLEC (the Complainant) are outside Angolan jurisdiction, thus they request for the waiver of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. 48. These claims, which are not contested by the Respondent State, show the apparent existence of fear of 4