50. On 21st May 1997, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Embassy of Egypt in Senegal forwarding copies of the legislative instruments in force relating to drug trafficking in Arabic (as well as amendments made thereto) as requested by the Commission. The Note Verbale also underscored that there was no special law applicable to passengers on transit in Egypt and therefore that the latter were subject to the same law. 51. On 28th May 1997, the Secretariat informed the Complainant of the defendant's response. 52. On 9th July 1997, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainant's last letter and on the same day sent a Note Verbale to the Embassy of Egypt seeking the reaction of its government to the information provided by Mr Ngozi Njoku. 53. At the 22nd Ordinary Session held in Banjul, (The Gambia) from 2nd to 11th November 1997, the Commission took a decision on the merits of the case. Law Admissibility 54. Article 56, paragraph 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights stipulates inter alia that “communications shall be considered if they do not deal with cases which have been settled in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter." 55. The Defendant State maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that the Working Group of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the prevention and protection of minorities seized of the matter by Mr Ngozi Njoku decided not to entertain the case. 56. The Commission, considering the provisions of the above-mentioned article, observes that the said text talks about "cases which have been settled…’’ It is therefore of the view that the decision of the United Nations sub-commission not to take any action and therefore not to pronounce on the communication submitted by the Complainant does not boil down to a decision on the merits of the case and does not in any way indicate that the matter has been settled as envisaged under Article 56 paragraph 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Commission therefore rejected the arguments of the Defendant. 57. On the issue of exhaustion of local remedies as provided for by Article 56, paragraph 5, the Commission observes that the Complainant has exhausted all local remedies provided