obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 17. Odjouoriby Cossi Paul (the Complainant) claims that the case opposing him to Mr Akitobi Honoré has been pending before the Appeal Court of Cotonou since 19th September 1995 and that up to now the Court has delivered no judgment. 18. And yet, it is obvious that the local proceedings will remain in impasse as long as the Appeal Court has not made any ruling on the appeal pending before it. 19. The African Commission has moreover established the evidence of silence of the State of Benin to all the notifications and other requests for clarification addressed to it through its Secretariat. 20. This situation has led the African Commission to rule on the admissibility of the communication submitted to it on the basis of the facts brought to its attention by the Complainant. 21. In accordance with the provisions of Article 7.1.d of the African Charter and its previous decisions, (see in particular communication 39/90 Annette Pagnoulle on behalf of A. Mazou/Cameroon1 ), the [African] Commission considered that the waiting period before the Appeal Court of Cotonou had been unduly prolonged and on these grounds, it had declared the communication admissible. 22. Details brought later to the case file by INTERIGHTS and the Institute for Human Rights and Development as well as by the Government of Benin indicate that: • Following an appeal lodged by the two parties, the case was the subject of a joinder by interlocutory decision dated 9th March 1996. • After several adjournments due mainly to non attendance by one or the other party at the hearings, the court gave judgment by default on 5th August 1999 indicating that non production of the disputed decision and conclusions by the parties causes damage to the smooth administration of justice. • Mr Akitobi Honoré, the opponent of Mr Odjouoriby, lodged an appeal against this decision and Mr Yansunnu, counsel of Mr Odjouoriby, submitted further pleadings in defence before the chamber of the Supreme Court on 27th June 2001. 23. But the African Commission maintains that in any case, the State of Benin remains the guarantor of a good administration of justice on its territory and for the[se] reasons, the African Commission upholds its decision on admissibility. Merits 24. The African Charter stipulates in Article 7.1.d that "every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises...the right to be tried within a reasonable time". 25. On 19th September 1995, the plaintiff lodged an appeal against judgment No. 75/95 4° CCM delivered on 7th August 1995 by the civil chamber of the court of first instance of Cotonou in its provisions on damages granted to him by the said court. 26. On his part, Mr Honoré Akitobi (the opponent of Mr Odjouoriby) filed a cross-appeal in reply to the principal appeal and as pointed out earlier, the proceedings pending before the appeal court are unduly prolonged. 27. Accordingly, the African Commission observes that the case before the Appeal Court has been unduly prolonged. 28. The African Commission is of the view that this undue prolongation of the case at the level of the Appeal Court is contrary to the spirit and the letter of above-mentioned Article 7.1.d. 29. Concerning the allegations of the plaintiff of violation of his right to property, the [African] Commission recalls that the right to property is recognised and guaranteed by the African Charter of which Article 14 stipulates that this right may be encroached upon only "in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws". 30. The African Commission, however, is of the opinion that to the extent that there has been no definitive decision in this case, it cannot substitute itself to the national courts to appreciate violation of the enjoyment of the right to property of the plaintiff. 2