62. On 6th July 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission wrote letters to the parties informing them of the Commission's decision. 63. On 29th September 1999, the Government of Botswana replied through fax confirming its position contained in its Note Verbale of 9th December 1998, and requesting that the information therein be brought to the attention of the Commissioners and the Legal representatives of the Complainant. 64. On 1st October 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission replied to the said Note Verbale. A copy of the government's response was forwarded to INTERIGHTS for information and necessary action. 65. On 20th October 1999, INTERIGHTS sent to the Secretariat of the Commission its written response to the observations of the Government of Botswana. 66. At its 26th Ordinary Session held in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission reviewed the case and noted that the Government of Botswana had indicated that if it did not hear anything contrary to its position, it would consider the case closed. Since INTERIGHTS had submitted a brief to the contrary, the Commission, therefore, decided to bring it to the attention of the Government of Botswana. A final decision on the merits was deferred to the next ordinary session. 67. The above decision was conveyed to parties on 18th January 2000. A copy of INTERIGHTS' brief was attached to the letter sent to the Government of Botswana. No response has been received from the competent authorities of Botswana. 68. At the 27th Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Algeria from 27th April to 11th May 2000, the Commission examined the case and deferred its further consideration to the next session. 69. The parties were informed of the said decision on 12th July 2000. Law Admissibility 70. This communication has a long history before the Commission. It was declared admissible at the 17th Ordinary Session of the Commission on grounds that local remedies were unduly prolonged and the legal process wilfully obstructed by the government through repeated deportations of the Complainant. The case was later closed because the Commission considered that the Complainant's naturalisation constituted an amicable settlement of the matter. It was however re-opened upon the application of INTERIGHTS on behalf of the Complainant. Merits The State Party's Response 71. The Respondent State later responded to the Commission's request on the terms of the settlement reached with the Complainant. It submitted, among others, that Mr Modise had been naturalised as a Botswana citizen on 28th February 1995. By virtue of that, he enjoyed all the rights inherent to his status as provided in chapter II of the country's constitution. Furthermore, a document attached to the note from the Respondent State contained the relevant constitutional provisions regarding Botswana citizenship as at the time of the country's independence. The document provides explanatory details on the birth and parentage of the Complainant, who was born in the territory of what was then the Union of South Africa (which became the Republic of South Africa in 1961), of a father who had the status of a protected person of the British crown, though originating from the protectorate of Bechuanaland (present day Botswana). The Respondent State points out that Mr Modise and his counsel had probably innocently misunderstood and misinterpreted Section 20(2) of the Botswana Constitution. The Respondent State avers that the place of birth of an individual immediately confers its nationality on that person. This nationality by birth may later be rejected or given up by that person, his parents or legal custodian. To avoid a child being born stateless, the law operates in such a way that the place of birth confers its nationality to an individual. It is not necessary to take any legal steps to guarantee that nationality. Section 20(2) of the Constitution concerns those individuals born outside the protectorate of Bechuanaland and who were at the time of their birth either subjects of Her Majesty or crown protected persons and whose fathers had acquired Botswana citizenship in compliance with the provisions of Section 20(1). John K. Modise could have benefited from the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Constitution if his father, born in the protectorate territory and having the status of a crown protected person were alive at the time of Botswana's independence. John K. Modise 4