13. The Complainants submit that on 28 June 2006 the Kiruki Commission started its public hearings, which were subsequently completed on 2 August 2006. The Kiruki Commission heard 84 witnesses and produced 83 exhibits against the Complainants. 14. The Complainants submit that their Defense Counsel attempted, twice, to take part in the proceedings, however he was not allowed to attend the proceedings. The Complainants submit that the Kiruki Commission stated, in its report, that this prohibition was necessary because the Complainants, in their criminal transactions, "used intermediaries such as advocates, who were retained in their transactions." 15. The Complainants submit that, in a letter dated 28 August 2006, the Kiruki Commission submitted its, report to the President which stated, inter alia, that the issuance of work permits, the handling and custody of their Entry Declaration Cards, the security of Blank Passports before issuance and the deportation were not procedural. The Kiruki Commission also concluded that the issuance of Airport Passes was irregular, the use of the Government VIP lounge was unauthorized and the breaches of security at the Baggage Hall on 8 June 2006 were criminal and threatening to public officers as well as the public. The Kiruki Commission further noted that the procedure for registering the companies associated with the Complainants was not adhered to, such as signature and stamp duty evasion. The Kiruki Commission also noted that following the raid of the Complainants residence, the police recovered the imported goods for which the Complainants refused to pay duty, thirteen vehicles which were believed to have been stolen, six firearms which were not licensed and two forged State passports of the Respondent State, among other items. 16. The Complainants submit that the Kiruki Commission concluded, inter alia, that the evidence revealed possible criminal acts committed by the Complainants, namely robbery with violence (Section 296(2) of the Penal Code); handling suspected stolen property (Section 322 of the Penal Code); being in possession of firearms without a certificate (Section 4(2), as read with Section 3(a) of the Firearms Act Cap 114); forgery (Section 349 of the Penal Code); being in possession of un-customed goods (Section 220(d)(iii) as read with Section 201 of the East African Community Management Act); establishing radio communication apparatus without a license (Section 35(a)(ii) of the Communication Commission Act No.2 of 1998 and fraudulent immigration (Section 114(i) of the Traffic Act Cap 403). The Kiruki Commission recommended that criminal investigation and prosecution of the Complainants for the stated criminal offences. 17. The Complainants submit that since the Kiruki Commission submitted its report to the President, no further proceedings have been conducted by an investigation authority, or the Courts. Articles alleged to have been violated 18. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State has violated Articles 7(1)(a), (b), (c),(d), 12(4) and 14 of the African Charter. Procedure 19. The Secretariat of the African Commission received the Complaint on 7 October 2011. 20. By letter ACHPR/COMM/407/11/KEN/0.1/757.11 dated 19 October 2011, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Compliant and informed the Complainants that it has been registered as Communication 407/11 - Artur Margaryan and Artur Sargsyan v. The Republic of Kenya. 21. During its 50th Ordinary Session held from 24 October to 5 November 2011, in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission considered and decided to be seized with the Communication, and the Complainants and the Respondent State were informed of the said decision by a letter dated 18 November 2011 and Note Verbale dated 21November 2011respectively. 22. During its 51st Ordinary Session held from 18 April to 2 May 2012 in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission decided to defer its decision on the Admissibility of the Communication pending submissions from both parties. Both parties were informed of such decision by Note Verbale and letter dated 8 May 2012, and in the same letter the Secretariat also requested the Complainants if they want their submissions on seizure to be also considered for admissibility. 23. On 10 August 2012 the Secretariat received the submissions of the Respondent State, and by a Note Verbale dated 16 August 2012 it acknowledged receipt, and on the same day forwarded the submissions to the Complainants. 24. At its 52nd Ordinary Session the Commission deferred the consideration of the Communication due to time constraints, and informed the parties of the same by a Note Verbale and letter dated 5 November 2