24. On 29 March indicating 2019 that the a Note Verbale extension of was 30 received days had from the expired Respondent State and requested the Commission to dismiss the Communication due to its failure of compliance with the Rules of Procedure and the lack of diligent prosecution on the side of the Complainants. Analysis of the Commission on strike out 25. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that when the Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the Complainants to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months. 27. In this case, the Complainants equested arguments on the admissibility of the Co to present evidence unication within two and (2) months from the date of notification of the seizure decision, which period had expired on 20 February 2017. However, the Complainants did not present any evidence and avguments within the stipulated time.: 28. Given' at more tha y;ear had :) passed without correspondence from the Commission, on 23 July 2018 the €omplainants were granted a further period of 30 calendar days from the date of notification to submit evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the above-mentioned Communication. 29. One year has lapsed since the expiry of the last extended period and no evidence and arguments have been submitted by the Complainants. 30. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainants have shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication. 31. The Commission takes note of its jurisprudence, including Communication 594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, Communication 612/16: Ahmed 5 Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the -:;::::=,�.....