for by Egyptian Law, including the possibility of having the case reviewed. Moreover, the government has not indicated existence of remedies other than those used by the Complainant. 58. For all these reasons, the Commission declared the communication admissible. Merits 59. Both the Complainant and the Defendant (State) admit that Mr Ngozi Njoku was arrested in the transit zone of Cairo Airport on 20th September 1986, whilst he was on his way to Lagos from New Delhi. They also admit that drug was found in a suitcase which was alleged to belong to the Complainant, the latter was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, that he was provided with the services of a Lawyer and that he exhausted all local remedies in 1991. 60. Apart from these points of convergence, the rest of the communication contains serious divergences as regards the information provided by the parties. It does not however behove the Commission to judge the facts. This is the responsibility of the Egyptian courts. 61. The role of the Commission in such a case is to ensure that during the process from the arrest to the conviction of Mr Ngozi Njoku, no provision of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was violated. It is also incumbent on it to ensure that the Defendant State respected and indeed enforced its own law in total good faith. To all these questions, the Commission responded in the affirmative. Holding On these grounds: 1. The Commission considers that no provision of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights has been violated and therefore declares the communication closed. 2. Gives mandate to Commissioner Isaac Nguema to pursue his good offices with the Egyptian government with a view to obtaining clemency for Mr Ngozi Njoku on purely humanitarian grounds.