th 32. By letter of 14 March 2005, the Office of the Attorney General of Zimbabwe requested the st African Commission for an extension to allow the State submit its arguments by 31 March 2005. th 33. By letter of 18 March 2005 addressed to the Attorney General, the Secretariat granted the State th an extension of thirty days and requested it to submit its arguments by 18 April 2005. th 34. At its 37 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission deferred consideration on admissibility of the communication after receiving a Supreme Court ruling dated th 15 March 2005 from the Respondent State in which the latter claims the Complainant’s grievances were addressed in the Court ruling. th 35. By Note Verbale of 24 May 2005, the Respondent State was notified of the Commission’s decision and requested to submit its arguments within three months of the notification. By letter of the same date, the Complainants were notified of the Commission’s decision. th 36. On 14 June 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission received a letter from the Complainant in which the latter expressed concern at the Commission’s decision to postpone consideration on admissibility of the communication. The Complainant also expressed concern at the Commission’s inaction on the State’s failure to abide by its request for provisional measures. th th 37. On 7 July 2005, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainants’ letter of 14 June 2005 and informed the Complainant why the communication was deferred. th st th 38. At its 38 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 21 November-5 December 2005, the African Commission considered the communication and declared it admissible. th 39. By Note Verbale dated 15 December 2005 and by letter of the same date, the State and the Complainants were notified of the African Commission’s decision and requested to submit their arguments on the merits within three months of the date of notification. st 40. By letter of 21 December 2005, the Complainant acknowledged receipt of the Secretariat’s letter th of 15 December and indicated that it will furnish its arguments on the merits “within the procedurally stipulated period”. th 41. By Note Verbale of 6 March 2006 and by letter of the same date, the Secretariat of the African Commission reminded the State as well as the Complainant to submit their arguments on the merits. st Both parties were given until 31 March to do so. rd 42. On 3 April 2006, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe in Ethiopia forwarding another Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Zimbabwe requesting the Secretariat to extend the date of submission of its arguments to th 15 April 2006. th 43. By Note Verbale date 10 April 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the Embassy’s Note Verbale and obliged to the latter’s request. th 44. At the 39 Ordinary Session of the Commission, the Respondent State submitted on the merits th and the Commission decided to defer further consideration of the communication to its 40 Session. th 45. By Note Verbale of 29 May and letter of the same date, the Secretariat of the Commission notified both parties of the Commission’s decision. th 46. At its 40 Ordinary Session the communication was deferred due to lack of time and the parties were informed accordingly. st 47. At its 41 Ordinary Session the communication was deferred to give the Secretariat more time to prepare the draft decision. During the same session the Secretariat received a supplementary submission from the Respondent State. th 48. By Note Verbale of 10 July 2007, and letter of the same date, both parties were notified of the Commission’s decision. nd 49. At its 42 Ordinary Session the communication was deferred to verify the State’s claim that it hadn’t submitted on the merits and to allow it submit its arguments. th 50. By Note Verbale of 19 December 2007, and letter of the same date, both parties were notified of the Commission’s decision. The Respondent State was informed that it had in fact submitted on the merits and a copy of the State’s submission was sent to both parties for ease of reference. rd 51. At its 43 Ordinary Session held in Ezulwini, the Kingdom of Swaziland the communication was deferred to allow the Secretariat incorporates the State’s supplementary submission into the draft decision.