The Admissibility of Subregional Courts’ Decisions before the African Commission. .. 269 no ‘obligation to decide according to legal principles’.188 The African Commission “would not rely on the process or mechanism of a ‘discretionary, extra-ordinary ... non-judicial nature’ to preclude the admissibility of a communication under Article 56(7) of the African Charter”.189 From the few decisions of the African Commission, it can be gathered that the Commission has depended on the nature of a tribunal or an organ to ascertain whether it falls under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. If a tribunal is of a judicial nature, or if it has an obligation to decide according to legal principles, then it falls under Article 56(7). Interights v Ethiopia and Eritrea illustrates the point.190 In this case, the complainant claimed that expulsion or deportation of Eritreans from Ethiopia and that of Ethiopians from Eritrea during the Ethio-Eritrean war of 1998 violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 12(1), 12 (2), 12(4), 12(5) 14, 15, 16 and 18(1) of the African Charter.191 In their submissions on admissibility, both Eritrea and Ethiopia argued that the communication was inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter.192 The African Commission considered the nature of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission that was established by the 2000 Algiers Peace Agreement concluded between Ethiopia and Eritrea.193 The African Commission extended the test of ‘obligation to decide according to legal principles’ to identify organs that fall under Article 56(7) of the African Charter.194 The African Commission held that the Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission falls under those bodies envisaged under Article 56(7) as the Claims Commission ‘is bound to apply rules of international law and cannot make decisions ex aequo et bono.’195 As the African Commission accepts the Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission as a body envisaged under Article 56(7), it should also view subregional courts in the same way for stronger reasons. subregional courts are more judicial in nature than the Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission because the former are courts while the latter is an arbitral tribunal.196 Consisting of five arbitrators, the 188 Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Akamu and Others) v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 180 (ACHPR 1995), para 8. 189 Communication 233/99, Interights (on behalf of Pan African Movement and Citizens for Peace in Eritrea) v Ethiopia and Communication 234/99, Interights (on behalf of Pan African Movement and Inter Africa Group) v Eritrea, Sixteenth Activity Report 2002-2003, Annex VII. 190 Ibid, para 56. 191 Ibid, para 1-9. 192 Ibid, para 28-29. 193 Algiers Peace Agreement, supra note 148, Art 5. 194 Interights v. Ethiopia and Eritrea, supra note 189, para 56. 6 Ibid. See Art 5 of the Algiers Agreement, supra note 148.