State for its observations. The Secretariat forwarded the Submissions by a Note Verbal of the same date, to the Respondent State, and requested the latter to forward its observations on the said Submissions within two (2) months of receipt of the Submissions, in accordance with Rule 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure 2010. 19. By a Note Verbal dated 17th December 2015, received at the Secretariat on 1st March 2016, the Respondent State acknowledged receipt of the Secretariat's Note Verbal and the Submissions of the Complainant. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Respondent State's Note Verbal on 3rd March 2016. 20. The Secretariat did not receive any observation or any further correspondence submissions from the Respondent State. 21. on the said During its subsequent Sessions held between March 2016 and October 2022, the Commission considered the Communication and decided to defer it due to time constraints. The parties were notified accordingly by correspondences following those, Sessions. The Law on Admissibility Complainant's Submission on Admissibility 22. The Complainant's arguments are mainly centered on Article 56(5) of the African Charter, which he submits that the Complaint complies with, citing the Commission's jurisprudence in Jawara v. The Gambia- where the Commission found that a remedy is 11 considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment and that is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint," and that" the existence of a remedy must be sufficient and certain not only in theon) but also in practice failing which it will lack the requisite accessibiliiq and effectiveness". 23. The Complainant does not make submissions on the Communication's Articles 56(1) (2) (3) (4) and (6) of the African Charter. compliance with 24. Regarding Articles 56(5) of the African Charter, the Complainant avers that the Complaint complies with the requirement of this Article. In this regard, he claims that local judicial remedies are either unavailable, insufficient or not effective at all and cannot therefore be accessed freely without coming into contact with artificial impediments, hindrances and hurdles placed on the Complainant by the agents of the Respondent State, deliberately as impeding tools and roadblocks to him and his clientele. 2 Communication 147/95-149/96 - Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (2000) ACHPR, para 32. 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR