The Respondent State was informed that the Communication was deferred due to time constraints. 7. By letters and note verbales dated 11 July 2017, 22 September 2017 and 24 November 2017, the Secretariat informed the Parties that the Communication was deferred. The letter of 24 November 2017 also informed the Complainant that the deadline for submissions expired on 29 November 2015, and that it was no longer possible to make submissions on the admissibility of the Communication. Analysis of the Commission to strike out 8. on of the period stipulated. The -a period not longer than one (1) Commission may grar month. 10. In this case, present evidence and arguments 1in two (2) months from the date the Comp which had expired on 29 November 2015. inant did not present any evidence and arguments within was informed that they could no longer make any correspondences of 05 January 2016 and 22 September 2017. 12. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainant has shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication. 13. The Commission takes note of its jurisprudence, including Communication 594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, Communication 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12L Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon and Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution. [P= LN a