23. At its 35th Ordinary Session held from 21st May to 4th June 2004 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered this communication and decided to deliver its decision on the merits. Law Admissibility 24. Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoplesâ Rights sets out seven conditions, which, under normal circumstances, must be fulfilled for a communication to be admissible. Out of the seven conditions, the government raised the issue regarding the exhaustion of local remedies as provided under Article 56(5) of the Charter, which stipulates :- âCommunicationsâ? to be considered, are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious this procedure is unduly prolongedâ . 25. In its submission of 7th January 2002, the Respondent State requested that the African Commission: ââ?enquire whether the Complainants had duly seized the African Commission...â. The Respondent State also informed the African Commission that the rulings of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court could not be appealed against. It however went on to say: >. Practically, the Respondent State affirmed that applications for revision have recently culminated into rulings of withdrawal by the same Chamber. 26. To support its line of reasoning, the Respondent State indicated that one the lawyers of UDF/EN, Lawyer Mohamed Ould Gowf made a plea in the same vein on 27/01/2001 but withdrew it the same day. Based on the above facts and on Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Respondent State requested that the communication be declared inadmissible due to the fact that the local remedies were not exhausted. 27. However, the fact remains that the generally accepted meaning of local remedies, which must be exhausted prior to any communication/complaint procedure before the African Commission, are the ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice. 28. However, it is a known fact that the revision procedure is an extraordinary legal remedy that exists only if a number of conditions specifically stipulated by the law are fulfilled. In this regard, Articles 197 and 198 CPCCA of the Republic of Mauritania do not allow access to revision unless it is proven that the legal decision taken was wrong or due to the fact that the other party is in possession of decisive evidence. 29. Furthermore, the fact that one of the lawyers of the Complainants who was probably not empowered to do so, had indeed applied for a revision and withdrew it the same day, was a clear indication of the Complainantâs intention not to resort to such a remedy. In fact, this does not affect at all the exceptionally legal nature of such a legal remedy as outlined above. 30. Consequently, it is a fact that the party that seized the African Commission had indeed exhausted, with regard to this particular case, the entire local remedies of common law that exist and can be resorted to before Mauritanian jurisdictions. 31. In view of the above-stated reasons, the African Commission declared the communication admissible. Merits 32. The communication relative to the dissolution of the Mauritanian political party UFD/Ere nouvelle in accordance with established and legally confirmed regulations is attacked by the Complainant before the African Commission for being in violation of Articles 1, 2, 7, 9(2), 10(1), 13 and 14 of the African Charter, on the basis of the following points: • The non-conformity of the legal ruling ratifying the dissolution on the principles governing the right to a fair hearing; • The criticism levelled against the legality of the decision for dissolution in accordance with established regulations and illegal and unjustified lapses blamed on the political party UFD/Ere nouvelle . 3