include the generation of evaluation studies and environment impact audits, landscape and structural replenishment plans and standing contract mechanisms for environmental management and auditing. 87. The Respondent State submits that following an accident in the Gulf of Mexico, its Ministry of Environment has audited oil rigs in the Angolan sea "with a view to preventing a repetition of what happened in ... the Western Hemisphere". It also claims that its Ministry of Environment has "been holding public consultation on environment impact evaluation in the Cabinda South Block in terms of Decree No 51". The Respondent State contends that these measures are not restricted to the oil sector but are extended to other resources. Thus, it argues that it has not violated Article 24 of the African Charter. 88. In proof of its assertion, the Respondent State attached the results of its 2008 and 2012 Legislative elections result but no other documents apart from a "Memorandum of Understanding and Integration of FLEC Members" which states that the Respondent State has spent huge sums of money to register and demobilise former FLEC soldiers. The Respondent State concludes by insisting that the Communication should be considered inadmissible "for lacking a legal basis and probable cause". Complainant's Supplementary Submission 89. In its supplementary submission in reply to the Respondent State's arguments on the merit, the Complainant reaffirmed and expanded on its version of the history of Cabinda in order to show that the territory of Cabinda was historically administered separately from mainland Angola and had a people with distinct linguistic, cultural and political identity. Amicus Submissions 90. Between January and March 2012 and again in June 2013, a number of submissions were made by a number of organisations representing different interests of the Cabinda people. With the consent of the legal representative of the Complainant, those submissions are considered as amicus briefs. In all their submissions, the different groups advance the Complainant's version of historical facts and insist that the people of Cabinda are victims of unlawful, aggressive and unilateral invasion by the government of the Respondent State. The groups submit that as a result of these historical facts and considering that the people of Cabinda were not consulted before their territory was ceded to Angola, the actions of the Respondent State amount to colonialism or neo-colonialism such that the people of Cabinda are entitled to self-determination. The Commission's Analysis on the Merits 91. Although it did not submit its observations on the Admissibility of the Communication despite the receipt of a formal invitation and reminders to that effect from the Secretariat,15 the first part of the Respondent State's submission on the Merit challenges the Admissibility of the Communication and raises issues that amount to a preliminary objection to the consideration of the Communication. Before analysing the merits of this Communication, the Commission considers it necessary to address some of the concerns raised by the Respondent State even though most of those issues ought to have been raised at the admissibility stage. 92. The Commission notes the Respondent State's argument that Article 57 of the African Charter requires that a Communication to be considered by the Commission should first be presented to the concerned State Party by the Chairperson of the African Commission, setting out procedural matters and indicating whether the Communication conforms to the provisions of the African Charter and other AU instruments. Article 57 reads as follows: Prior to any substantive consideration, all communications shall be brought to the knowledge of the State concerned by the Chairman of the Commission 93. The Commission affirms that Article 57 of the Charter obligates it to notify a State Party of the existence of a Complaint against such a State Party so that the State Party can participate in the proceedings. The Commission recalls that notice of this Communication was transmitted to the Respondent State by Note Verbale dated 28 February 2007. As indicated in paragraphs 16 to 20 and paragraphs 24 to 27 of the Admissibility decision, the Secretariat through several subsequent correspondences transmitted to the Respondent State the original Complaint and all other documents filed by the Complainant regarding this Communication. Further, as noted in paragraph 39 above, at least ten (10) reminders were sent to the Respondent State to respond to the Admissibility arguments but these did not yield any response from the Respondent State. Accordingly, the African Commission notes that it has satisfied its duty to the Respondent State as required by Article 57 of the African Charter. 9