33. The Commission decided on the Admissibility of the Communication at its 73rd Ordinary Session. The Law on Admissibility Submissions of the Complainant on Admissibility 34. The Complainant submits that the Communication is admissible because he has exhausted local remedies, in accordance with Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 35. The Complainant submits that he was apprehended on 5 March 2009by ADSU, and that on 13 June 2013 he was found guilty on two charges and sentenced to 33 years imprisonment plus a fine of Mauritian rupees 300,000, which is equal to another two years, if unable to pay. 36. The Complainant avers that he appealed against the conviction and the sentence. He states that the appeal was heard on 8 May 2015, on 23 July 2015, the appeal was successful, and the conviction and sentence were overturned. 37. The Complainant submits that he was remanded in Central Prison Beau Bassin for six (6) years and four (4) months. 38. The Complainant submits that he can no longer submit claims against the State agents involved in his illegal arrest and detention as Section 4 (i) of the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) 1957 allows only two years for any person to enter a claim against a public officer. He alleges that he could not engage proceedings within the two-year mandatory period under the POPA 1957 because he could not afford the facilities of a lawyer, and therefore local remedies are not available to him. 39. The Complainant avers that he complied with Article 56 (6) of the African Charter, having submitted the Communication within a reasonable period of time after being released from prison. Submissions of the Respondent State on Admissibility 40.The Respondent State submits that the Complainant has failed to comply with the admissibility conditions under Articles 56 (2), 56 (3), and 56 (5) of the African Charter.