94. The Respondent State further contends that the African Commission has failed to comply with Rule 6(3)16 of its own Rules of Procedure. The Commission notes that the provisions cited by the Respondent State relating to the Provisional Agenda of the Commission's sessions are now contained in Rule 32 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Commission recalls that Rule 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure provides as follows: The provisional Agenda shall include but not be limited to, items on "Communications from States" and "Other Communications" in accordance with the provisions of Articles 48, 49 and 55 of the Charter. 95. The Commission reaffirms that Rule 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure permits "Other Communications"17 such as the one now being considered to be included in the Agenda of the Commission's Session. In line with that provision, the present Communication is properly before the Commission as it has duly been included in the Agenda of the Session. 96. The Respondent State contends further that the present Communication ought to have been declared inadmissible because it fails to comply with certain aspects of Article 56 of the African Charter. The Commission recalls that the Respondent State was contacted at every stage and given ample opportunity to present its position and arguments regarding the admissibility of this Communication but the Respondent State did not take advantage of the opportunity. 97. The Commission notes further that in the event that a State Party fails to submit its observations on admissibility within 60 days from the receipt of the Complainant's submission from the Secretariat as set out in Rule 105(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, this Commission is authorised to proceed to make a decision on the admissibility of the Communication. In such cases, the Commission examines the admissibility submissions of the Complainant against the provisions of Article 56 of the African Charter. The Commission notes that in relation to the present Communication, this procedure has been followed to the letter. Accordingly, the Commission cannot revisit its admissibility decision in respect of the Communication. 98. Notwithstanding the fact that its Admissibility decision in respect of the Communication will not be reviewed, the Commission notes the Respondent State's argument that the present Communication should have been declared inadmissible on the grounds that it contradicts Articles 3(b) and 4(b) of the AU Constitutive Act. In that regard, the Commission recalls the Complainant's submission that the present Communication does not seek a decision on political self-determination or a right to secede from the Respondent State. 99. In its correspondences and submissions to the Secretariat, the Complainant has maintained that its claim is strictly restricted to a request for a decision on economic self-determination and a determination of the right of the people of Cabinda to enjoy the use of natural resources located within the Province of Cabinda. The Commission has also considered the prayers of the Complainant and notes that the claims as formulated do not contradict the provisions of Articles 3(b) and 4(b) of the AU Constitutive Act. The Commission does not consider itself bound to pronounce on the amicus briefs which seek to introduce secessionist dimensions to the Communication. Accordingly, the Commission proceeds to determine the Communication based on the submissions of the Parties. Alleged violation of article 14 100. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated the right to property of the people of Cabinda contrary to Article 14 of the African Charter. Article 14 of the African Charter provides as follows: The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws. 101. The Complainant contends that an incident of the right to property as guaranteed in the African Charter is that the natural resources of Cabinda must be administered largely for the benefit of the people of Cabinda since the people of Cabinda claim a distinct identity from the rest of Angola. It is also the Complainant's argument that the Respondent State is not entitled to unilaterally grant resource licences and concessions on Cabinda resources. 102. The Respondent State submits that its Constitution provides for the right to property and that the constitutional right is available to all the peoples of Angola. However, the State argues that certain items are classified in its Constitution as property in the public domain intended to serve the wider national interest rather than the interest of a smaller unit within the state. The Respondent State further challenges the Complainant's argument that the Government of Angola has not managed natural resources for the benefit of Cabinda people. 10