16 Communication 333/2006 - Southern African Human Rights NGO Network and Others vs Tanzania (2010) ACHPR, para 56 - 66. 17 n 19 (sic!) above 18 App Nos. 28851/95 (Eur. Comm'n on HR 1998) 19 Communication 257/2003 - Article 19 vs. Eritrea (2007) ACHPR 20 Paras 13 & 44 of Tanzania submission on Admissibility. 21 Complainant's Supplementary Submission on Admissibility, para 22 22 Ibid. 23 n14 above (sic!). 24 n15 above 25 Fn 27, para 23. 26 Id, para 44. 27 Ibid 28 n18 above. 29 Fn 27, para 51. 30 Communication 275/2003 (n24 above) para 75, Communication 137/94, 139/94, 154/97 and 161/97 International PEN et al (on behalf of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr) vs. Nigeria (1999) ACHPR paras 74-76 and Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum vs. Zimbabwe (2006) ACHPR, para 72 31 Fn 27, para 66 32 Para 31 of Tanzania's submissions on Admissibility. 33 Communication 159/96 - Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme, Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme, RADDHO, Organisation nationale des droits de l'Homme au Sénégal and Association malienne des droits de l'Homme vs. Angola (1997) ACHPR, para 10. 34 See Communication 227/99 - Democratic Republic of Congo vs Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda (2003) ACHPR, para 51-53. 35 Please note that according to the Editorial Policy on Standardizing Decision Writing for the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, which is an internal working document of the Commission, if a compliant/ author is not the victim of the alledged violations, then the author/complainant (being the party submitting the complaint to the commission) is distinguished form the victim. Thus, in naming the Communication, the name of the victim is reflected against that of the State Party, with the name of the complainant/author in parentheses, as in the present case. 36 Communication 104/94-109/94_126/94 - Centre of the Independence of Judges and Lawyers vs. Algeria, (1995) ACHPR para 3. 37 Communication 108/93 - Monja Joana vs. Madagascar (1997) ACHPR para 6. See also Communication 62/91 - Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (in respect of Ms. Jennifer Madike) vs. Nigeria and Communication 70/92 - Ibrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande, Ousmane Kaba vs. Guinea, which were closed by the Commission as a result of lack/loss of contact with the complainants. 38 Frans Viljoen, International Human Rights Law in Africa (2012), 311. 39 Communication 266/03- Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al vs.Cameroon (2009) ACHPR, paras 71. 40 Communication 268/03 - Ilesanmi vs. Nigeria (2005) ACHPR paras 37-40. 41 Communication 284/03 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe / Zimbabwe (2009)ACHPR, paras 83-97. 42 n60 above, para 39. 43 n61 above, para 88 44 n61 above. 45 Ibid, para 91. 46 See Communications 262/02 - Mouvement ivoirien de droits de l'Homme (MIDH) vs. Cote d'Ivoire (2008)ACHPR paras 47-48&260/02- Bakweri Land Claims Committee vs. Cameroon (2004) ACHPR para 48. 47 n17 above. 48 Ibid, para 13. 49 n9 above 50 See also Nsongurua Udombana, So Far, So Fair: The Local Remedies Rule in the Jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (2003) 97 AJIL No. 1, p. 2 available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1805139 (accessed on 16 June 2014) (link updated by editor) ; Silvia D'Ascoli and Katherine Maria Scherr, "The Rule of Prior Exhaustion of Local Remedies in the 19