to take necessary action. 13. By email dated 28th October 2003, the Chair of the African Commission wrote advising the Secretariat that since the matter would be handled as a communication at the African Commission's forthcoming 34th Session, an Appeal Letter should not be sent to the government of Kenya until after the African Commission had examined the matter and determined what course of action to take. 14. On 31st October 2003, the Secretariat of the African Commission wrote to the Complainant acknowledging receipt of the communication. 15. At its 34th Ordinary Session held from 6th to 20th November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the communication and decided to be seized of the matter. 16. On 4th December 2003, the parties to the communication were informed accordingly and requested to forward their written submissions on admissibility of the communication within 3 months. 17. On 15th March 2004, the parties to the communication were reminded to forward their written submissions on admissibility to the Secretariat. 18. By email dated 16th March 2004, the Secretariat received a letter from the Complainant withdrawing the matter as she believed that the matter was now being addressed by the Respondent State. 19. On 25th March 2004, the Secretariat received the Respondent State's submissions on admissibility and acknowledged receipt of the same on 26th March 2004. 20. By letter dated 26th March 2004, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainant's letter withdrawing the communication and also forwarded a copy of the Respondent State's submissions on admissibility. 21. At its 35th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered this communication and decided to close the file. Respondent State's submissions on admissibility 22. The Respondent State provides a background against which it undertook the judicial reforms which have in part given rise to this communication. They argue that a well functioning judicial system is crucial to improving governance, combating corruption and consolidating the democratic order, thereby fostering economically sustainable development. Therefore, a judicial system with integrity should be free from political and external interference. Furthermore, judicial independence must be balanced by accountability in order to facilitate transparency within the system and control of corruption. 23. It is submitted by the Respondent State that the tendency towards corruption and abuse of power among certain members of the judiciary in Kenya has been lamented over time. As such, one of the key objectives of the Kenyan government has been to undertake judicial reform in order to develop an impartial, independent, accountable and effective judiciary that is able to improve governance and advance development in the country. 24. The Respondent State contends that the communication does not meet the requirements in Articles 56(2), (4) and (5) of the African Charter. 25. It is submitted that the communication is substantially based on newspaper reports and is therefore not founded on factual realities of the case contrary to Article 56(4) of the African Charter. 26. The Respondent State further submits that the Complainant did not even attempt to exhaust local remedies in their case as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. In this regard, the Respondent State argues that the national legal framework in Kenya is adequate to address the concerns raised by the Complainant and should have therefore been utilised. For instance, the concerns raised by the Complainant could have been addressed through, the constitutional provisions or national statutes like the Public Officer Ethics Act 2003, the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003. Furthermore, local judicial action and remedy is available to the judges, should any of the procedures adopted be deemed illegal or in any case ultra vires. 27. The Respondent State reports that the judges are not on trial as understood but that special investigative tribunals were set up to determine issues touching upon the behaviour and ability of the judges implicated to perform the functions of their office. [Twenty-three] (23) judges from both the Court of Appeal and High Court of Kenya were involved and were investigated within 14 days of the presentation of the Ringera Report. The Tribunals started sitting on 9th and 16th February 2004. 28. Confidentiality was assured for the affected judges in the initial stages and at all crucial times. Only broad categories of alleged offences were highlighted in the media. The Respondent State argues that it was therefore possible for a judge to privately and conscientiously place him/herself into any of the 2