same, the respondent state was served with the complaint and informed of the
Commission’s decision to be seized of it.
24. On the 7th of October, the Complainants filed their observations on admissibility;
25. By Note Verbale dated 14 October 2022, the Complainants’ observations were
transmitted to the Respondent State and an invitation made for them to transmit
the same with 60 days of that notification.
26. On the 11th of November 2022, the Secretariat once again wrote to the Government
of the Republic of Kenya to reiterate that their observations were due for
submission in under a month and highlighting that in the absence of the former,
the Commission would have to adopt a default decision.
27. The Secretariat has since not received any response from the Respondent State.
THE SUBMISSIONS FROM THE COMPLAINANT ON ADMISSIBILITY
28. The Complainants submits that in accordance with Article 56(1) of the African
Charter, the Communication identifies the Complainants as Kamilya Mohammedi
Tuweni, Badriyah Badr Hassan Abdalla, Bardees Badr Hassan and Hayatti Hafidh
Salem Hassan who are represented by REDRESS. The Complainants argue that the
communication is compatible with Article 56(2) as it alleges violations of the
Charter which Kenya ratified on the 23rd of January in 1992. Regarding Article
56(3), the Complainants propound that the Communication is written in respectful
language which is neither disparaging nor insulting to the Respondent State or the
AU. The Complainants submit that they comply with Article 56(4) on account of
their communication not being based on news media but rather on a range of
sources including witness statements and various contemporaneous documents.
29. The Complainants submit that they exhausted local remedies in accordance with
Article 56(5) in that the First Complainant commenced the Kenyan Civil Claim
against the Kenyan Attorney General and Commissioner of Police in 2009 which,
ultimately, was dismissed by the Kenyan High Court in 2021. The Complainants
aver that the judge found the vast majority of their evidence inadmissible. The
Complainants further propound that letters referring to Miss Kamyila‘s detention,
the flight manifest bearing her name and the copies of pages from her passport
7