the same before the 33rd Ordinary Session of the Commission. 16. At its 33rd Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger from 15th to 29th May 2003, the African Commission considered the communication and declared it admissible. 17. On 12th June 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant and Respondent State informing them of this decision and further reminding them to forward their written submissions on merits of the same before the 34th Ordinary Session of the Commission. 18. A similar reminder was re-sent to the Respondent State on 3rd July 2003 and to both parties on 6th August 2003. 19. On 3rd October 2003, the Secretariat received the Respondent Stateâ??s written submissions to the communication, which was forwarded to the Complainant on 6th October 2003, which was received, per DHLâs online Global Tracking facility, on 13 th October 2003. 20. At its 34th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 6th to 20th November 2003, the African Commission examined the complaint and decided to defer its consideration on merits to the 35th Ordinary Session. 21. On 8th and 9th December 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant and the Respondent State respectively informing them of this decision and further requesting the latter to forward to the African Commission a copy of the countryâs Civil Procedure Code and the former its response to the written submissions of the Respondent State before the 35th Ordinary Session. 22. On 13th January 2004, the Complainant sent its written submissions accordingly, which were forwarded to the Respondent State on 11th February 2004. 23. On 17th February 2004, the Respondent State forwarded a copy of the countryâs Civil Procedure Code through the African Unionâs office in Addis Ababa. 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 held from 23rd November to 7th December 2004, in Dakar, Senegal, the African Commission considered the communication and took a decision on the merits. Law Admissibility 27. Article 56.5 of the African Charter governs admissibility of communications brought before the African Commission. In this regard, the African Commission notes that the Respondent Stateâs only challenge on the admissibility of this communication concerned itself with Article 56.5 under which it claimed that the dismissal of the application for review was done by a Court of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with its laws. For the purposes of the said sub-article, however, this claim does not refute the Complainantâs claim that she could not seize the highest Court in Tanzania for the reason that she opted to apply for a review of the decision of the High Court that dismissed her application. 28. For this reason, the African Commission decided to declare this communication admissible at its 33rd Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger from 15th to 29th May 2003. Merits 29. As can be seen in paragraph 2 above, the complaint arose out of the Tanzanian High Courtâs decision to dismiss the Complainantâs civil case appeal for the dissolution of marriage on the ground that she failed to appear on the date set for the hearing irrespective of the fact that she was not served with summons or notice notifying her of the date for the same. In seizing the African Commission, the Complainant alleged that the Courtâs decision, an institution of the Respondent State, denied her right to fair trial, and (as the original case before the lower magistrate court related to dissolution of property as well) her right to the matrimonial property. 30. The Complainant further alleges, in her memorial to the African Commission of 9th September 2004, that it was her counsel and not her who was reportedly present and aware of the date on which her case was slated before the High Court which dismissed it altogether for non-appearance. She further alleged that there was no evidence presented showing that her counsel (on whose expertise she, as a lay person, 2