14. By letter and note verbale dated 24 June 2016 the Complainant and the Respondent State were informed of the decision to be seized and the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on admissibility within two (2) months. 15. By letter and note verbale dated 22 November 2016 the Complainant and the Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during the 59th Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on admissibility. By the same communication, mplainant was reminded to submit submissions on admissibility wi me (1) month, failing which it would be struck out for lack of diligent pro i ‘iat on 17 March October 201 made their November expired and , the Respondent State indicated that the additional time s requested the Commission to strike out the Communication. had Analysis of the Commission to strike out 21. 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 Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months. 22. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. ZA WOMAN AND SS Le egRETARIA? =