61. The Respondent State further pointed out that for these reasons, the Complainant should not speak of abnormally long delays in the Cameroonian justice system, particularly where the « current delay is not attributable to the Court in charge of the case but rather to the Complainant Party itself ». 62. In consequence, the Respondent State requests the African Commission to declare the communication inadmissible. Analysis of the African Commission on the admissibility 63. The African Commission considers that the complainant party, before appearing before it had started to use the remedies available at the local level. The procedure before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court had lasted 5 years without any feedback for the complainants, contrary to the regulations in force and in spite of the numerous reminders which had been sent to the said Court. The African Commission therefore considers that the delay on the part of the Court in the treatment of the case was unduly prolonged. 64. Pertaining to the Compensation Commission set up under the Prime Minister’s Office, its operations were highly inefficient as 12 years after its creation and 11 years after hearing the victims, it had not published its report. There also, the African Commission considers that this ad hoc Commission, whose establishment was aimed at achieving an amicable settlement of the case, had registered excessive delays in its operations. 65. The Respondent State pleads that the legal authorities remain aware of the case at the national level but the African Commission considers the delays by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cameroon excessive. 66. The African Commission further notes that re-introduction of the proceedings on the case before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in February 2004, namely after a gap of 5 years, only took place after the submission of a Complaint (to the African Commission), by the victims in April 2003 and after the decision on seizure taken by the Commission on the said complaint in May 2003 rd (33 Ordinary Session), as well as the hearing of the Parties to the case in November 2003 during its th 34 Ordinary Session. This leads the African Commission to presume that the re-introduction of the proceedings was not accidental but rather it was due to the action brought by the victims before the African Commission. 67. The African Commission considers that State Parties have an obligation to administer, on their territory, clear and diligent justice in order to give satisfaction to the complainants in the shortest possible time, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the African Charter and with the directives and principles of the right to a fair hearing in Africa. 68. In this particular case, the Commission notes that for 5 years, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Respondent State had not provided any reaction to the complainants, in spite of several appeals by the latter. The Respondent State has admitted this fact but attributes it to lack of resources. Consideration of the case has indeed recommenced a short while ago, but one can reasonably conclude that this consideration was largely due to the seizure of the African Commission by the victims. Whereas this should not be the case, that is, justice to be administered by State Parties should not wait for the African Commission to be seized of a matter before it is rendered fully, clearly and diligently. This had not been the case with the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Respondent State. 69. Concerning the Compensation Commission, an ad hoc institution meant to solve the problem amicably at the national level, has shown its limitations in failing to produce any Report after twelve years of existence. The Respondent State does not refute these allegations, which allows one to believe that they are true. The African Commission therefore considers that this remedy is neither effective nor satisfactory. 70. For these reasons, the African Commission declares the Communication admissible. The Merits 71. Pursuant to 1995 Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 120 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission, once a communication which is