32. Regarding payment of reparations, Uganda points to the lack of documentation on this issue and, concerning the illegal exploitation of the Democratic Republic of Congo's natural resources, Uganda denied involvement and affirmed its "unconditional support to the United Nation's efforts to set up a panel of experts [that the Democratic Republic of Congo has also approved] to investigate" the issue. 33. On the issue of investigation of human rights violations, while Uganda welcomed the Democratic Republic of Congo's call for independent investigation, it portrayed the Democratic Republic of Congo's uninvestigated allegations as 'disturbing'. 34. Uganda also noted that the Democratic Republic of Congo has accused Uganda in several other fora: the UN Security Council, the ICJ, the Lusaka Initiative, and the OAU. According to the Respondent State, these actions "present a dilemma to the conduct of international affairs...and adjudication," undermining the credibility of these institutions and the [African] Commission as divergent opinions may be reached. 35. In conclusion Uganda contends that "there is no legal basis on which the African Commission can deal with the communication and declare any of the remedies sought by the Democratic Republic of Congo against Uganda.". 36. Copies of the submissions of Uganda on communication 227/99 were transmitted to all States concerned by the communication. 37. In December 2000, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission received a set of five (5) submissions from the Democratic Republic of Congo containing reports on alleged violations of human rights by armed forces of the Respondent States and their alleged allies in the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The submissions also stated that the foreign uninvited troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo were looting the resources of the country. 38. The Secretariat of the [African] Commission transmitted these submissions to the respective parties to the communication. 39. At the 29th Session, which was held from 23rd April to 7th May 2001 in Tripoli, Libya, the communication was not considered because the [African] Commission had still not received any submission from one of the Respondent State, namely, Burundi. On that occasion, all relevant letters and submissions by the other States were transmitted to the delegations of all the Respondent States including Burundi, for their consideration and reaction to the [African] Commission. 40. In August 2001, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission received a request from the Ministry of Human Rights of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which deplored the delays in the processing of communication 227/99 and invited the [African] Commission to summon an extraordinary session in order to deal diligently with the communication. 41. By Notes Verbales ACHPR/COMM/044 sent to their respective Ministries of Foreign/External Affairs on 26th September 2001, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission informed all States concerned by communication 227/99 that it was going to consider the said communication on the merits, at its 30th Ordinary Session scheduled from 13th to 27th October 2001 in Banjul, The Gambia. 42. In October 2001, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission received a Note Verbale from Rwanda, which restated the objections raised in its submission of October 2000 concerning communication 227/99, adding that if Rwanda's arguments were not taken into account, it should not be called upon to present a defence. 43. At its 30th Session, the [African] Commission discussed the request by the Democratic Republic of Congo about organising an extraordinary session to deal with communication 227/99 and resolved to raise the issue with the relevant authorities of the Secretariat of the African Union. The [African] Commission also heard oral statements by the delegations of Rwanda and Uganda on the issue, written copies of which were also handed over to its Secretariat. 44. In its statement, the Rwandan delegation reiterated its arguments stated during the 28th Session and objected to the proposed extraordinary session to deal with the communication on the grounds that the communication could be considered during an ordinary session and that an extraordinary session will have financial implication[s]. Rwanda therefore recommended that the [African] Commission deals with the communication during its 31st Session scheduled for May 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa. The statement further justified the presence of Rwandan troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo by the assistance that the Government of this country is granting elements hostile to the Government of Kigali and concluded that as long as such a threat exists for Rwanda, it could not withdraw its troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo. 45. In its statement, the Ugandan delegation said that they had not received the documents sent to them on communication 227/99 and could not present their defence at that stage. The delegation further objected to 5