•
stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not
longer than one (1) month.
28. Jn this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date
of notification of the seizure decision, which period had expired on 28 October
2017. However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments
within the stipulated time.
from
29. Given that more than six (6) months had passed without correspondence
the Commission, on 07 July 2018 the Complainant was granted a further period
of 30
calendar
days
from
the
date
of notification
to
submit
evidence
and
arguments on the admissibility of the above-mentioned G:o�unication.
30. More
than three
period
and
no
(3)
months have
evidence
and
lapsed
since
arguments
the e<(!'iry of the last extended
have
been
submitted
by
the
Complainant.
31. In light of the above, the Commis�on therefore finds that the /
C
m lainant has
shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication.
32. The Commission takes note of its
·urisprudence,
including Communication
594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v , the Arab Republic of
Egypt,
Communication
612/16:
Ahmed"Mohammed'1.Ji
Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12:
and Communication 387/10:
were
Decision
of
similar!ftruck
�al
Kofi'-Yamagnan}-v.
Subaie
Echos du
The
v.
Nord
Republic of
the
v.
Arab
Gabon
Togo, which
out for want of diligent prosecution.
the Commission
'
Y
�
33. In �
�...of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication
for lack of diligent prosecution.
Done at the )Ordinary Session of the Commission held i
The Gambia
ii:
�
from 24 October to 13 November 20,
£�.
ll�,.11 ...t
""',.
, , .,, � \
J
o,
..
\
...
-�·",
...
;
.;,
)
�
.._"-sso,.-f'K,#._+-!°'
'<,
01()1,t'!li'.1,)\:�
4