Submissions of the Respondent State 27. In its written submissions, the Respondent State stresses that the acts committed by the accused amounted to a terrorist crime endangering national peace and security. Considering the cruel nature of the crime characterised by the use of lethal weapons and given that these crimes are provided for in Parts 5, 6 and 7 of the 1991 Criminal Code of Sudan, the accused were judged by a military court in conformity with the 1986 law relating to the peoples’ armed forces, following the assent of the Minister of Justice as applied for by the military authorities under the law. The court’s sessions were open to the public and the accused were treated in accordance with the law which guarantees them the right to fair trial. They exercised their right to freely choose their legal counsel. The legal counsel was composed of nine prominent names from the Sudanese Bar, presided by Abel Alier Esq., former Vice President of the Republic of Sudan. 28. The defense counsel submitted an appeal to the Constitutional Court, thus suspending the course of military proceedings. The Constitutional Court delivered a final judgment rendering void the decision of the military court. 29. The President of the Republic then pardoned the accused in this criminal case so as to promote national harmony and peace to which Sudan has always aspired, and prepare a climate of understanding and comprehensive peace. In the light of this Presidential proclamation, the Minister of Justice instructed that the legal proceedings be discontinued and that the accused to be released immediately. 30. The pardon was published in the media and neither the declaration of the President of the Republic nor the decision of the Minister of Justice expressly states the condition prohibiting the accused from appealing to the courts or that they should renounce any of their rights. 31. The Respondent State is convinced that the Government of Sudan, has, in all the procedures, complied with the provisions of the African Charter as well as the principles of international law on human rights. Law Admissibility 32. The admissibility of the communications submitted in conformity with Article 55 of the [African] Charter is governed by the conditions set out in Article 56 of the same Charter. The applicable provision in this particular case is Article 56 (5) which stipulates that: “communications….shall be considered if they are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged…” 33. The case under consideration is a consolidation of two communications with similar allegations. 34. In his oral submissions, the delegate of the State informed the African Commission that after the adoption of the new 1998 Constitution, the political situation in Sudan was marked by important political developments which were characterised by the return to Sudan of many opposition figures and leaders of political parties living abroad, and these could go about their political activities in the country in a climate of peaceful coexistence, freedom, pardon and dialogue with a view to building the unity of Sudan. During this period, Sudan was distinguished by its respect and commitment to the UN Charter and the OAU Charter in its relations with neighbouring States, and it was able to re-establish relations with a view to realising cooperation and trust so as to strengthen African unity and solidarity. Following these developments, the state discontinued the legal proceedings against the Complainants. Since then, they exercise their political activities freely and in a climate of forgiveness and brotherhood. 35. The Respondent State insists that the Complainants were allowed access to justice and were not deprived of their right to submit their applications for the protection of their constitutional rights. It considers that the Complainants did enjoy all their rights provided for by Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.