30. On 12 May 2014, the Complainant submitted her arguments on the merits. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 22 May 2014 and forwarded the submission to the Respondent State on the same date. On 21 July 2014, the Respondent State requested for a 60-day extension to submit its observations. On 22 July 2014, the Secretariat granted a 30-day extension in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The Complainant was informed of this latest development. 31. On 21 October 2014, the Respondent State submitted its observations to the Secretariat. On 28 October 2014, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt and forwarded the observations to the Complainant for her comments. 32. On 28 November 2014, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat requesting for an extension to submit her observations. On 8 December 2014, the Secretariat granted a 30-day extension in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The Respondent State was informed of the extension. 33. On 4 January 2015, the Complainant forwarded her observations to the Secretariat. On 26 January 2015, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt and forwarded the observations to the Respondent for a rebuttal, if any. There was no other correspondence between the parties. The Law on Admissibility Complainant’s Submissions on Admissibility 34. The Complainant submits that the Communication meets the conditions to be declared admissible, basing her admissibility arguments on the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter has been met. 35. The Complainant submits that the exhaustion of local remedies requirement is inseparable from that of the prior existence of available and fair local remedies, and that such a condition can become an obstacle only in cases where prompt and sufficient local remedies are available. The Complainant further submits that going by the jurisprudence of the Commission, the condition of exhaustion of local remedies must be applied concomitantly with Article 7 which establishes and protects the right to a fair trial. 36. The Complainant submits that local remedies exist in this case but are not available. She submits that since the property was acquired in the most legal 7