'; /;~}!p:<, ACH PR , [(\ (,1:' ll"~ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola: "in the face of the state's failure to address itself to the complaint filed against it, the African Commission has no option but to proceed with its consideration of the Communication follounng its Rules of Procedure. "5 In the same decision, the Commission re-affirmed its position by holding that" ... it would proceed to consider Communications on the basis of the submission of the Complainants and information at its disposal, even if the State fails to submit." Consequently, the Commission must give due weight to.the Complainants' allegations insofar as these have been adequately substantiated. 41. The Commission notes from the complainant's submissions and the facts of the Communication, that the requirements under subsections (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) and (7) Df Article 56 raise no. contentious issues and require no further examination. The Commission considers that the Communication meets these requirements and will assess further, the conformity of the Communication with the requirement under Article 56 (5) Dfthe Charter. 42. Article 56(5) allows the Commission to.consider a Communication after the Victim has exhausted local remedies, if any, unless, it is DbviDUSthat this prDcedure is unduly prolonged. The rationale of this rule has been clarified in the Commission's jurisprudence as a means of giving the state notice and affording it the opportunity of remedying a violation that has Dccurred in its territory, using its local mechanisms, before its international responsibility can be called into.question at the level of regional Dr international mechanisms. 6 43. Regarding the First Victim, the Complainants explained, as outlined above, that her case was heard by the Supreme Military Court which acquitted the accused Dfall charges. It has also.been explained that the decision acquitting the accused was not appealed by the Military Prosecutor even though that possibility existed and that the Code of Military Justice prohibits the lodgement of civil claims before military courts Dr attaching civil claims to' cases being considered by the military courts. It has further been explained that the acquittal of the accused by the military court bars any other court, criminal Dr civil from considering a civil claim on the matter. Communication 292/04 para. 34; See also, Communication 155/96 Social and Economic Rights Action Center, Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, and 159/96 Union Inter Africaine des Droits de I'Homme, Federation Intemationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Rencontre Africaine des Droits de l'Homrne, Organisation Nationale des Droits de l'Homme au Senegal and Association Malienne des Droits de l'Homrne v. Republic of Angola. 5 6 See Communication 296/05 Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sud 81Pagc =4:<'t-,OI!l1t1"l African{~~ Union\.fi