13. By a letter dated 5 December 2017, the Secretariat informed the Complainants that the Complaint would be tabled for consideration before the Commission. 14. By a letter and Note Verbal dated 5 December 2017, the Commission wrote to the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, requesting provisional measures under Rule 98 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. 15. A letter of clarification was sent by the Secretariat on 29 December 2017, requesting the Complainants to clarify whether local remedies had been exhausted. No response was received. 16. A follow-up letter of clarification was sent by the Secretariat on 3 August 2022, referring to the letter dated 29 December 2017 and requesting clarification on whether the Victims were still involved in an ongoing appeal before the Egyptian national courts. The follow-up letter also indicated that the Secretariat had neither received any response to the request for clarification nor had it received a submission on the admissibility of the Communication. 17. Furthermore, the above-mentioned follow-up letter indicated that if the Secretariat did not receive any response within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification, the Communication would be struck out from the List of Communication for lack of due diligence. Analysis of the Commission on strike out: 18. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rule of Procedure (2010) provides that when the Commission is seized of a Complaint, it shall request the Complainant to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months. 19. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one (1) month. 20. In the present Communication, the Complainants were requested to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date of notification of the seizure decision. This period expired on 29 February 2018. However, the Complainants, though the extension of time of thirty (30) that was granted suo motu, did not present any evidence and arguments within the stipulated time, and neither did they apply for another extension of time. 21. About six (6) years have elapsed since the expiry of the deadline, or arguments have been submitted by the Complainants on th the Communication. 3IPage