23: The Respondent State argues that the Commission’s decision on Admissibility, to which it objects, did not come up with solid and convincing logic to refute the objections raised. The Respondent State also argues that it was irregular for the Commission to argue on behalf of the Complainant when they failed to make submissions regarding the issue of previous settlement of the Communication. 24. The Respondent State further alleges bias on the part of the Cc reasons; first that the Commissioner spearheading the géinmun Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and ALL to campaign against Eritrea when she wrote a pretantl welcoming remarks at the launch of the eepagiftiies Eritrea: meneet Freedom of Dares ‘on rahie i t i | At } oe conducted a contents of and gave 1 f the Ru e of Law in of theComin on’s 56th Session Ht v principle of confidentiality. 25. The Respondent tat salso argues that the matter has be the subject ofadjudication as it was declua at the isn proceedings are not yielding any resulkt.. "ie urge the AU — that, “it seems that the legal ontnission should, in its next activity report, to take appropriate measures, as allowed for under Article 23(2) of The Complainant’s Observations on the Preliminary Objection PA In its response, the Complainant indicates that the Commission’s decision on Admissibility already addressed the Respondent State’s objection hence the Objection amounted to a re- trial of the case. In respect of the Respondent State’s allegation that the matter has been politicised, the Complainant argued that the Respondent State’s suggestion that the Honourable Commission during a side event at the 56 Ordinary Session in April 2015 urged the "AU Assembly to take appropriate measures" against Eritrea was incorrect as.it came from one of the panellists and not a member of the Commission. It attributes this error Ga tet, VE