it was giving strangers the carte blanche to occupy Botswana and utilize its resources in dealing with Communications of this nature. 64. Accordingly, the Respondent State submits that although the Communication was originally and properly before the African Commission, it does not have an author to pursue it, as Brain Spilg SC and Unoda Mack do not have the AC HP R competency to pursue the matter on behalf of Kobedi who is now deceased. Complainants’ Submissions on Locus Standi 65. In response to the Respondent State‟s submissions, the Complainants confirmed they were appointed by the Registrar of the High Court of Botswana to represent Kobedi during the proceedings before the Botswana Courts. They argue that Brain Spilg SC has practiced Law in Botswana since 1982, and in spite of the changes in the law affecting practice by non-resident practitioners, Brain Spilg SC had continued to receive instructions from the Government of Botswana and its parastatal bodies, ordinary corporations and individuals. The Complainants said the facts that advocate Brain Spilg SC is not a citizen of Botswana is irrelevant to the authorship of this Communication because it is not a requirement under the African Commission‟s Communication procedure. Indeed the Complainants states that the Victim (Kobedi), as well as other accused persons whose capital cases have not been finally disposed of, are non-citizens of Botswana. 66. On the question of lack of interest, the Complainants aver that the information on the Communication Procedures prepared by the Secretariat of the African Commission does not require the author to indicate their legal interest when submitting a Communication. They argue that by requiring Complainants 12