rd 61. The African Commission consequently deferred consideration of the matter to its 33 Ordinary th th Session scheduled to take place from 15 to 29 May 2003, in Niamey, Niger. rd 62. The African Commission considered this communication during the 33 Ordinary Session and decided to deliver its decision on the merits. Law Admissibility 63. The [African] Commission had to resolve the matter of the locus standi of the author of the communication. It would appear that the authors of the communication were in all respects representing the interests of the military regime of Burundi. The question that was raised was whether this communication should not rather be considered as a communication from a state and be examined under the provisions of Articles 47 through 54 of the African Charter. Given that it has been the practice of the [African] Commission to receive communications from NGOs, it was resolved to consider this as a calls action. In the interests of the advancement of human rights this matter was not rigorously pursued especially as the Respondent States did not take exception by challenging the locus standi of the author of the communication. In the circumstances the matter was examined under Article 56. 64. Under Article 56.5 and 56(6) of the African Charter, communications other than those referred to in Article 55 received by the [African] Commission and relating to human and peoples‟ rights shall be considered if they:   (5)" are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”; (6) are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted, or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter”. 65. These provisions of the African Charter are hardly applicable in this matter [insofar] as the national courts of Burundi have no jurisdiction over the State Respondents herein. This is yet another indication that this communication appropriately falls under communications from states Articles 47 54 66. However, drawing from general international law and taking into account its mandate for the protection of human rights as stipulated in Article 45(2), the [African] Commission takes the view that the communication deserves its attention and declares it admissible. Merits 67. The communication was submitted by the Association pour la sauvegarde de la paix au Burundi against States of the Great Lakes region (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia) and Ethiopia, in the wake of an embargo declared by these countries rd against Burundi on 31 July 1996, following the coup d‟etat carried out by the Burundian army on th 25 July against the democratically elected government. 68. The communication alleges that by its very existence this embargo violated and continues to violate a number of international obligations to which these states have subscribed, including those emanating from the provisions of the Charter of the OAU, the African Charter, as well as Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the General Assembly of the UN on the principles of international law applicable to friendly relations and cooperation between States on the basis of the UN Charter. 69. The states accused in the communication, particularly Zambia and Tanzania which submitted written conclusions on the case, reject the allegations against them, stating among other things, that while it is true that the decision to impose an embargo against Burundi was taken at the Arusha st Summit of 31 July 1996 at which they participated, (with the exception of Zambia, which only joined