guarantees the res judicata status of decisions issued by international and regional organs mandated to adjudicate human rights cases. 13. In line with the above, regarding the current Communication, the Committee notes that the requirement of ‘pending settlement or has been settled by another body’ shall be understood to say that the case in question should be pending or already settled by a body that has the mandate to reach a decision that binds that State concerned. The spirit and wording of Section IX (1)(C) of the Revised Communication Guidelines is clear that it is not referring to all kinds of mechanisms available at international or regional levels, rather it is referring to procedures that are capable of redressing a violation as it uses the term ‘settlement’. In its admissibility ruling on the case of Project Expedite Justice and others v The Sudan, where the Respondent State argued that the same matter is pending before another procedure as the United Nations Security Council was considering the issue, the Committee held that ‘[f]or the Committee to consider any other procedure as considering or having settled a matter, the body or procedure must be able to address in substance the rights given to the child by the African Children’s Charter. Hence, the organ or body in question must have a mandate comparable to the Committee.’4 Since the UN Security Council does not have a mandate comparable to the Committee; the Committee decided that the matter cannot be regarded as pending before another international procedure and therefore dismissed the argument of the Respondent State in the stated case. Drawing inspiration from other jurisdictions, the Committee refers to the decision of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) on the Celis Laureano v Peru case, where the HRC held that international settlement for admissibility does not include extra-conventional procedures that are tasked with assessing or reporting on certain human rights violations in specific territories.5 More similar to the case at hand, in the Madoui V Algeria case, the HRC declared the case admissible, although the same issue has been submitted before the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances as such mechanisms are not what are meant by international settlement under its Optional Protocol.6 Likewise, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights outlined that a case is deemed settled if it is considered by an international treaty body or adjudication mechanism.7 The Commission further mentions that consideration by another international procedure entails a procedure that ‘is capable of granting declaratory or compensatory relief to victims, not mere political resolutions and declarations’ and hence matters considered by the UN Security Council or Human Rights Council are not precluded from being entertained by the Commission. 14. The Committee also notes that the mandate of the Special Rapporteurs or Working Groups of the Human Rights Council is limited to sending communications to the 4 ACERWC, Communication No 0011/Com/001/2018, Decision on Admissibility No 01/2019, Project Expedite Justice and others v The Sudan, para 37 5 Human Rights Committee (HRC), Communication 540/1993, Celis Laureano v Peru, (25 March 1996), para 7.1 6 HRC, Communication 1495/2006, Zohra Madoui (represented by counsel, Nassera Dutour) v Algeria Decided at 94th session, 28 October 2008, CCPR/C/94/D/1495/ 2006 para 6.2. 7 ACHPR, Communication 279/03, Sudan Human Rights v The Sudan; ACHPR, Communication No 296/05 Centre on Human Rights and Evictions v The Sudan, May 2009, para 104. JN 7