the extension of time by Note Verbale dated 24 December 2013. 22. On 10 January 2014, the Complainant transmitted his Submissions on the Admissibility of the Communication, which was duly acknowledged by the Secretariat through letter dated 17 January 2014, and transmitted to the Respondent State the same day, for its Observations on the Submissions of the Complainant. 23. On 19 March 2014, the Respondent State forwarded its Observations on the Admissibility Submissions of the Complainant to the Secretariat, which was duly acknowledged by Note Verbale dated 25 March 2014, and transmitted to the Complainant also by letter dated 25 March 2014. 24. By letter transmitted via email on 14 April 2014, the Complainant informed the Secretariat of the re-appointment of Professor Michelo Hansungule from the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria as his legal representative. The Complainant also requested for Provisional Measures in the same letter. 25. By letter dated 17 April 2014, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainant's letter and informed him that his request for Provisional Measures has been brought to the attention of the Chairperson of the African Commission in accordance with Rule 98(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. 26. By email dated 30 April 2014, the Complainant forwarded his Response to the Observations of the Respondent State on Admissibility, which was hand- delivered to the delegation of the Respondent State on 6 May 2014 during the 55 th Ordinary Session of the African Commission, held in Luanda, Angola. 27. By letter dated 11 May 2014, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of his Response to the Observations of the Respondent State on Admissibility, and also informed him of the decision by the Chairperson of the African Commission to decline his request for Provisional Measures. 28. On 22 May 2014, the Secretariat received letter dated 20 May 2014 from the Complainant for information on why the Chairperson of the African Commission decided to decline his request for Provisional Measures. The Complainant also informed the Commission by letter of 15 May 2014 of the decision of the Lesotho Tax Tribunal and his inability to appeal the decision because of lack of means to pay his lawyers. The Law on Admissibility The Complainant's submissions on Admissibility 29. The Complainant in his submissions on Admissibility, only addresses one of the seven requirements under Article 56 , namely Article 56(5) on the exhaustion of local remedies. In the admissibility submissions. 30. The Complainant avers that following the refusal of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Public Safety to swear him in as a citizen of Lesotho, he petitioned the Office of the Ombudsman, who after hearing the various parties recommended he be sworn in within a month. The Ombudsman's recommendation was not adhered to and the Complainant subsequently brought an urgent motion before the High Court of Lesotho which in its Judgment, ordered among other things that he be sworn in. 31. The decision of the High Court of Lesotho was successfully appealed by the Ministry of Home Affairs before the Appeal Court which found that the Complainant had lied about his date of entry into Lesotho and was thus not qualified to be sworn in as a Citizen. Consequent upon the Court of Appeal Judgment, the Complainant's citizenship and passport were revoked and he was prohibited from entering the territory of Lesotho. 2 32. The Complainant submits that whilst in South Africa and following the revocation of his passport and 3