16. On 12th June 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant and the Respondent State informing them of this decision and further reminding the latter to forward its written submissions on admissibility of the same before the 34th Ordinary Session of the Commission. 17. On 12th September 2003, the Secretariat of the African Commission received the written submissions on admissibility of the Respondent State. This was forwarded to the Complainant on 23rd September 2003. 18. At its 34th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 6th to 20th November 2003, the African Commission examined the complaint and declared it admissible. 19. On 10th December 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the parties informing them of this decision and further requesting them to forward to the African Commission their respective written submissions on the merits of the communication before the 35th Ordinary Session. 20. On 12th March 2004, the Respondent State forwarded its written submissions on the merits of the communication and expressed its wish to lead oral arguments on the matter during the 35th Ordinary Session of the African Commission, receipt which the Secretariat acknowledged on 17th March 2004. A similar request to address the African Commission orally was sent to the African Commission by the Complainant on 11th and 23rd March 2004. 21. On 17th March 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission forwarded a copy of the Respondent State's written submissions on the merits to the Complainant. 22. By a Note Verbale of 21st May 2004, the Respondent State informed the Secretariat that the parties in the matter have consulted on the date for the hearing of the communication by the African Commission and kindly requested the latter to consider the same on the 29th May 2004, which date would be most suitable for them to appear. 23. The parties have concluded their exchange of submissions on the merits. They are now both requesting the African Commission to allow them to lead oral arguments to complement their submissions on the same. The African commission granted them audience as requested to enable them complement their written submissions and to enable the African Commission to engage the parties during their presentations. 24. At its 35th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 21st May to 4th June 2004, the African Commission examined the complaint and decided to defer its decision on the merits to the 36th Ordinary Session. 25. On 17th June 2004, the Secretariat informed both parties of this decision. 26. At its 36th Ordinary Session that took place from 23rd November to 7th December 2004, the African Commission considered the communication and took a decision on merits thereto. Law Admissibility 27. Since both parties have not contested the issue of admissibility of this communication, and since the complaint complies with the requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter, the African Commission decided, unanimously, to declare it admissible at its 34th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 6th to 20th November 2003. 28. As per the original complaint, the Complainant is a 32 year old man who wishes to become an attorney in the courts of South Africa. Having satisfied all the academic requirements of the South African Attorney's Act (the Act), he applies to register a contract of community service with the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (the Law Society). Under the same Act, registering articles of clerkship or performing community service, as Mr Prince wished to do, is another requirement that an applicant should fulfil before he/she could be admitted as an attorney to practice before the High Court. As per the provisions of the Act, the Applicant, such as [sic] Mr Prince should serve for a period of one year. Before serving so, however, the Act requires that the Applicant should provide proof to the satisfaction of the Law Society that he/she is "fit and proper person". In his application to the Society, and as part of the legal requirement, Mr Prince disclosed not only that he had two previous convictions for possession of cannabis under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act (the Drugs Act) but that he intended to continue using cannabis as inspired and required by his Rastafarian religion. 29. The Law Society declined to register Mr Prince's contract of community service taking the view that a person who, while having two previous convictions for possession of cannabis, declares his intention to continue using the substance, is not a "fit and proper person" to be admitted as an attorney. Mr Prince alleged that the Law Society's refusal to register meant that as long as he adhered to the requirements of 2