63. The Respondent State further submits that the victim did not avail himself of the possibility offered to him to resort to the President to review the decision expelling him. It is therefore the State’s submission that local remedies have not been exhausted. 64. For all the aforementioned reasons, the Respondent State prays the Commission to declare the communication inadmissible. Response of the Complainants to the Respondent State’s submission on admissibility 65. The Complainants submit that the fact that the OAU ceased to exist does not affect the existence of the Commission, and that the latter continues to exist de facto and de jure. De facto, the work of the Commission was not hindered or suspended as a result of the coming into force of the AU Constitutive Act: it continued considering communications; holding sessions; undertaking visits to State Parties, including the Respondent State, which continues to collaborate with it. De jure, the AU Assembly, by its decision, ruled that the Commission “shall henceforth operate within the framework of the African Union”. 66. The Complainants argue that the African Charter established the Commission and the fact that the African Charter is still in force, as the Respondent State did acknowledge, is tantamount to recognising the existence of the African Commission. 67. With respect to the disclosure of documents to the State, the Complainants argue that the communication is not based on media reports but on the information provided by the victim and on court documents, and that only two judgments have been enclosed because they are the only ones relevant at the particular stage of the proceedings and from the point of view of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 68. The Complainants also challenge the argument of the Respondent State that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over immigration matters. They submit that that Article 45.2 mandates the Commission to protect human rights generally, without leaving out the rights of immigrants or people facing deportation, noting that Article 12 of the Charter makes clear reference to migration. 69. The Complainants finally submit that the other points of the State’s submission relate to the merits and should not be considered at this stage of the procedure, adding that the communication meets all the admissibility requirements and should be declared admissible. Respondent State’s reaction to the Complainant’s response to its submissions th 70. In an oral submission during the 40 Ordinary Session of the Commission, and by letter dated nd 22 March 2007, the Respondent State submitted that the additional submission on admissibility by the Complainants should be purged from the record of proceedings because the invitation to make additional submission was a misuse of the procedure under Rule 119 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. It is the Respondent State’s view that no reason was given for inviting the Complainants to submit and that the letter was signed by a Finance and Administration Officer (FAO), who is not a member of the Commission, and in inviting the Complainants to submit, the FAO unlawfully participated in the deliberations or decisions of the Commission. 71. The Respondent State goes on to reiterate its statement that the Commission is an emanation of the Charter, which established it to work within the OAU. The dissolution of the OAU, the State submits, deprived the Commission of the legitimacy and authority as mechanism for the settling of disputes. According to the Respondent State, in the absence of an amendment to Article 30 of the African Charter to enable the Commission to operate within the AU, and without an AU decision integrating the Commission as an organ of the AU, the African Commission lacks legal basis to continue performing its mandate under the African Charter.