16. On 13 May 2015, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the correspondence and informed the Respondent State that the matter would be brought to the attention of the Commission. 17. During its 18th Extra-Ordinary Session held from 21 July to 7 August 2015 in Nairobi, Kenya, the Commission considered the matter and decided to make a ruling on the Preliminary Objection before proceeding to the Merits of the Case. In all deliberations pertaining to the matter, the Honourable Commissioner imputed in the preliminary objection on allegations of bias recused herself. 18. The Secretariat informed both parties of its decision to make a ruling on the Respondent State’s Preliminary Objection by letter and Note Verbale dated 20 August 2015 and invited the Complainant to make its observations on the same. 19. On 24 August 2015, the Secretariat received the Complainant’s Observations on the Respondent State’s Preliminary Objection. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt and transmitted the same to the Respondent State via letter and Note Verbale dated 2 September 2015, respectively. The basis of the Preliminary Objection on the Merits 20. The Respondent State submits that the Commission’s decision on Admissibility is contrary to the African Charter in that it alleges violation of rights, involves the same parties, and seeks the exact same remedies as those sought in a case that has already been decided before the Commission. 21. The Respondent State argues that the Complaint fails to comply with Article 56 (7) of the African Charter because a decision was delivered on the case and does not warrant relitigation. 22. The Respondent State further argues that the decision does not adhere to the requirements of Article 117 of the Transitional Civil Procedure Code of Eritrea and that the case of Dawit Isaak is a matter of national security that should not be reviewed by the Commission. 23. The Respondent State argues that the Commission’s decision on Admissibility, to which it objects, did not come up with solid and convincing logic to refute the objections raised. The Respondent State also argues that it was irregular for the Commission to argue on behalf of