the case to the Secretariat of the African Commission, which in turn had conveyed it to the
th
complainant party by letter dated 17 November 2004.
th
24. During its 36 Ordinary Session, which was held in November/December 2004 in Dakar,
Senegal, the African Commission considered the complaint and declared it admissible.
th
25. By letters dated 20 December 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission notified this
decision to the Parties and requested their arguments on the merits of the case as early as possible.
th
26. On 30 March 2005, the arguments of the Respondent State on the merits of the communication
had been received at the Secretariat of the African Commission through a Note Verbale dated
th
16 March 2005.
th
27. On 14 April 2005, the Secretariat of the Commission acknowledged receipt of the memorandum
from the Respondent State on the merits of the communication and on that same date, conveyed it to
the complainant party for reaction.
rd
28. On 3 October 2005, the complainant sent its rejoinder to the observations of the Respondent
th
th
State on the merits of the complaint by letter dated 26 September 2005. On the 13 October 2005,
the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the letter.
th
29. On 30 November 2005, this document had been forwarded against a receipt of
th
acknowledgement, to the delegation of the Respondent State attending the 38 Ordinary Session of
the Commission.
st
th
30. During this same Session (21 November – 5 December 2005, Banjul, The Gambia), the African
Commission examined the complaint and in the absence of any reaction from the Respondent State to
the arguments of the complainant party on the merits of the case, differed its decision at this point to
th
its 39 Ordinary Session.
th
31. On 7 December 2005, this decision was notified to the Parties and the Respondent State, in
particular had been invited to send its reaction on the submissions of the complainant within 3 months.
32. In the absence of any reaction from the Respondent State, a reminder had been sent to it on the
rd
23 March 2006.
th
33. By Note Verbale dated 29 March 2006, and received by the Secretariat of the African
th
Commission on the 13 April 2006, the Respondent State conveyed its reaction on the arguments
submitted by the complainant party on the merits of the case.
th
34. The Secretariat transmitted these arguments to the complainant party on the 8 May 2006.
th
th
35. In a Note Verbale dated 30 June 2006 and a letter also dated 30 June 2006, the Parties had
th
been respectively informed that during its 39 Ordinary Session, the African Commission had decided
th
th
th
to defer the case to its 40 Ordinary Session scheduled for the 15 to 29 November 2006 in Banjul,
The Gambia.
th
36. On the 4 October 2006, the Secretariat of the commission received a memorandum from the
complainant party in rejoinder to the arguments on the merits formulated by the Respondent State to
the communication.
th
th
th
37. During its 40 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from the 15 to 29 November
st
2006, the African Commission decided to defer the case to its 41 Ordinary Session scheduled for the
th
th
16 to 30 May 2007 in Accra, Ghana for a ruling on the merits of the case.
st
st
38. In a Note Verbale dated 31 January 2007 and a letter also dated 31 January 2007, the Parties
st
were informed about the deferment of the case to the 41 Ordinary Session of the African Commission
th
th
scheduled for the 16 to 30 May 2007 in Accra, Ghana.
st
39. During its 41 Ordinary Session held in Accra, Ghana, the African Commission had deferred the
nd
communication to its 42 Ordinary Session for a decision on the merits of the case.
th
40. By Note Verbale dated 15 June 2007 and a letter dated the same day, the Parties to the
nd
communication had been informed of the deferment of the case to the 42 Ordinary Session of the
th
th
Commission scheduled for the 14 to 28 November 2007 in Brazzaville, Congo.
th
41. In a Note Verbale dated 11 September 2007 a letter had been sent to the Respondent State
nd
reminding it of the deferment of the communication to the 42 Ordinary Session.
th
42. By letter dated 13 September 2007, the complainant party had been reminded about the
nd
deferment of the communication to the 42 Ordinary Session.