EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 158 75. For the aforementioned reasons the Commission finds that this Communication does not comply with Article 56(5) of the Charter. 76. From the above ruling it follows that the filing of the Communication by the Complainant is premature and has not observed the requirement under Article 56(6) of the Charter. 77. Regarding the requirement that a communication must not be considered if it has already been settled before other international bodies, the Complainant claims that the present Communication has neither been dealt with nor is it pending before any other international body. The Respondent has also not challenged this assertion. Consequently, the Commission holds that the Complainants have satisfied the requirement under Article 56(7). 78. Obiter dictum: in line with its well established jurisprudence the African Commission considered the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions56 in support of the Complainants submissions. However, the Commission notes that the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions does not address itself on Admissibility. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 79. In view of the above the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights decides: I. To declare the Communication Inadmissible because it does not comply with the requirements of Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter; II. To give notice of this decision to the parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of the New Rules of Procedure (RoPs) III. To inform the Complainants of their right to resubmit the Communication before the Commission after exhausting local remedies in accordance with Rule 107(4) of the RoPs; IV. To include this decision in its Report on Communications. Done in Banjul, The Gambia, during the 9th Extra-Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held from 23 February to 3 March 2011.s 56 See Communication 276/03 – Centre for Minority Rights Development and Minority Rights Group International (on behalf of the Endorois Welfare Council) v Kenya and Communication 313/05 – Kenneth Good v Botswana (2010) and also Rule 99 (16) of the New Rules of Procedure of the African Commission.