256 Mizan Law Review Vol. 6 No.2, December 2012 The African Commission and the African Court belong to this category.98 99 Article 56(7) of the African Charter precludes the African Commission from dealing with ‘cases which have been settled.’ However, the decisions of the African Commission do not seem consistent on this issue. For example, the African Commission, contrary to Article 56(7) of the African Charter, declared a communication inadmissible on the ground that it ‘had already been referred for consideration to the Human Rights Committee’ in Mpaka-Nsusu v Zaire" Although it does not come out from the records of the case, it may be surmised that the African Commission had learned reference of the case to the Human Rights Committee from submissions of the respondent state. in another communication, the African Commission proceeded to consider a communication that had already been submitted to the Working Group of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in Njoku v Egypt.100 The respondent challenged admissibility of the communication under Article 56(7) of the Charter. Rejecting the argument of the respondent, the Commission held that: [Article 56(7)] 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(7) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Commission therefore rejected the arguments of the defendant. The African Court decides on ‘the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter.’101 By referring to Article 56 of the 98 See art 6(2) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This provision refers to art 56 of the African Charter. Other example include art 35 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, signed by the Members of the Council of Europe on 4 November 1950 at Rome, entered into force on 3 September 1953. 99Mpaka-Nsusu v Zaire (2000) AHRLR 71 (ACHPR 1994), para 3-4. 100 Njoku v Egypt (2000) AHRLR 83 (ACHPR 1997), para 56. The Commission did not consider the matter settled as the Working Group of the United Nations Sub­ Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities did not decide on the merit of the decision. 101 Protocol on the African Court, Art 6(2). It should be noted that the wording of Art 6(2) of the Protocol gives more lee ways to the African Court. The Court need not strictly apply the provision of art 56(7). But the African Commission has no such lee ways. See Viljoen (2007), supra note 1, p. 448.