37. By Note Verbale of 14th July 2006 and by letter of the same date, both parties were notified of the [African] Commission's decision. 38. At its 40th Ordinary Session held from 15th to 29th November 2006 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the communication and took a decision on the merits. Law Admissibility 39. The admissibility of communications submitted in conformity with Article 55 of the Charter is governed by the conditions spelt out by Article 56 of the same Charter. According to Article 56(5) communications can only be considered if they are submitted "after the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 40. According to Article 56(2), communications brought before the African Commission shall be "compatible with the Charter of the [OAU] or with the present Charter", and in terms of Article 56(5), communication will not be examined unless they "are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 41. The Complainant has submitted evidence that he brought an action before the Court of First Instance which delivered a ruling on the 18th February 1997, condemning the Respondent State to pay to him the amount of 195,037,000 FCFA, namely the equivalent of 297,333.98 Euros. This judgment was not contested by the Respondent State. A certificate of no appeal had been delivered to the Complainant by the Registrar of the Court. 42. The Complainant added the certificate of no appeal to the case file, which means that the judgment is final and should be executed. He produced supporting documents certifying that the file had been forwarded by the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of the Economy, Finances and Budget for execution. The Complainant alleges that despite several notices sent requesting it to honour its debt, the Respondent State has refused to comply. 43. The Complainant alleges that the ruling, in relation to which execution is being called for is final and binding. He contends that the certificate of no appeal added to the case file legally establishes that there are no other remedies to be brought against the said ruling. 44. The Complainant alleges that in a country where the rule of law exists, the fact that an Administrative Officer refuses to execute a decision of the Court against which there are no more legal remedies, is a constitutive case of criminal offence. 45. The Respondent State, in making an oral presentation of its grounds of defence before the African Commission during its 34th Ordinary Session, did not contest the facts of the complaint. It however raised a plea of inadmissibility regarding the Complainant's request on the grounds that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies had not been observed. 46. Regarding the incompatibility with the Charter, the Congolese State alleges that the object of the communication does not fall under the jurisdiction devolving on the [African] Commission in terms of Article 45 of the Charter that is to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in Africa. According to the State, "...The [African Charter] has established a non-jurisdictional mechanism to guarantee rights and freedoms, the decisions of the latter having just a moral significance and are not binding. Therefore, the [African] Commission could not turn into a jurisdiction to consider requests for the payment of money against states." 47. The [African] Commission observes that the communication is based on allegations of violation of provisions of the Charter which it has the mandate to promote and protect. As the State itself acknowledged it in its submission, the African Commission "controls the conformity of State Parties actions to [African Charter]". The [African] Commission finds that in the case under consideration, in seizing the [African] Commission, the Complainant does not have any other intention than to request the latter to play its role by controlling the conformity to Articles 2, 3, 21(2) of the Charter of an action (the refusal to enforce a court decision in favour of the Complainant) of a State party (the Republic of Congo). The [African] Commission concludes that the object of the communication falls under its mandate and, as a result, finds that the communication is compatible with the Charter. 48. Regarding the exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State contends that the complainant had a remedy against the refusal of the Minister of the Economy, Finances and Budget to execute this ruling in accordance with the provisions of Articles 405 to 409 of the Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure. These articles stipulate that: "any citizen who is qualified and so wishes has the right 3