Communication. At that Session, the Commission examined the Communication and decided to defer its decision on the merits to its 43 rd Ordinary Session. By Note Verbale and Letter dated 19 December 2007, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the submissions on the merits of the Communication and transmitted a copy of these submissions to the Complainants. 24. At this consideration stage of the Communication, the Commission requested for additional information from the parties as to the national court whose decision constitutes the main source of information of the allegations of violation brought before the Commission. In the absence of a response from the parties, the Secretariat forwarded several reminders to the parties before notifying them that at its 50 th Ordinary Session scheduled to be held from 24 October to 7 November 2011 in Banjul, The Gambia, it will examine the Communication without the aforesaid decision. 25. On 15 November 2011, the Secretariat informed the parties that the Commission examined the Communication at its 50 th Ordinary Session but as a result of time constraints, it had decided to defer the consideration of merits to its 51 st Ordinary Session to be held from 18 April to 2 May 2012 in Banjul, The Gambia. On 31 May 2012, the decision to postpone it once again to the 52 nd Ordinary Session was communicated to the parties. 26. At its 52 nd Ordinary Session held from 9 to 22 October 2012 in Yamoussoukro, Côte dIvoire, the Commission examined the Communication and decided to postpone it again to enable the Secretariat to prepare a draft decision on the merits. The Secretariat informed the parties about the decision by letters dated 13 November 2012. The Law Admissibility The Complainants submissions on Admissibility 27. In their submissions on admissibility, the Complainants aver that the contents of the Communication are actually true and tangible facts: it concerns some minors who were sentenced by a Court, the rulings of which cannot be appealed against. According to them, it is not a Communication based on the collection of media reports but it presents tangible facts that have been proved on the basis of legal texts and rulings by authorities of the Respondent State. 28. With regard to the requirement for the exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainants contend that the sentences handed down by the Military Court to the victims cited above cannot be appealed against. Indeed, according to them, Article 5 of Decree No. 019 of 23 August 1997 establishing the Military Courts stipulates that its rulings can neither be opposed nor appealed against . The Complainants believe that remedies are not available, and therefore the Communication must be declared admissible. 29. On the existence of alternative means of redress such as pardon set out in the provisions of Article 175 on the Executive Decision on the Organisation of the Judicial System establishing the Rules of Procedure of Courts, Tribunals and Public Prosecutors Offices, the Complainants believe that it is only a non jurisdictional and ineffective remedy at the discretion of public authorities. The Complainants refer to the decision in Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan by asserting that such remedies are not accepted by the Commission. 3 30. On the argument of the Respondent State according to which the complaints lodged in this Communication are said to have been settled by Decree No. 084/2002 of 2 August 2002, the Complainants aver that the above Decree was issued in August 2002 whereas the sentences handed down to the victims identified in the Communication date as far back as February 1999 for previous cases and the most recent ones occurred in April 2001. This Decree, according to the Complainants, would address the situation of the victims without doing away the serious injury suffered by the victims for having been tried illegally and 4