Measures was attached to the letter sent to the Complainants with a request to forward it to the Office of the President of Botswana. However, before the transmittal happened, the Secretariat of the Commission was regretfully informed by the Complainants through telephone that the victim had been executed that morning of 1 April 2006. On 4 April 2006, the Secretariat of the Commission received an email from the Complainants confirming the execution of the victim by the Government of Botswana on the Morning of Saturday 1 April 2006. The Law on Admissibility The Complainants' Submissions on Admissibility 25. In accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter) read with Rule 103 of the old Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the Complainants submit that all of the criteria for the admissibility of this Communication have been satisfied as follows: 1. The Complainants have been identified and their relevant details provided to the Commission; 2. The Communication is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and with the Charter; 3. The Communication is presented in polite and respectful language, and is based on information provided by the applicants and on a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Botswana; 4. The Complainants confirm that they have exhausted local remedies. The execution of their client, Mr Oteng Modisane Ping, on 1 April 2006 was based on the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Botswana dated 26 January 2006.3 The Court of Appeal is the highest Judicial Authority in the Country, from which there are no other avenues of Appeal; 5. The Communication was submitted to the Commission on 31 March 2006, that is, 3 months and 5 days after their client's appeal before the Court of Appeal was dismissed. 6. The Communication has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 26. For the reasons stated above, the Complainants submitted that the Commission should declare the present Communication admissible. The Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 27. The Respondent State failed to respond to the Commission's request to make submissions on the Admissibility of the Communication, within the stipulated time, despite several reminders. 28. Therefore, in line with Rule 117(2), the Respondent State had been given the opportunity to submit its own observations and information on the Admissibility of the Communication but failed to do so. The Commission's Decision on Admissibility 29.Rule 117(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission provides that: the Commission...may request the State Party concerned...to submit in writing additional information or observations relating to the issue of admissibility of the Communication. The Commission...shall fix a time limit for the submission of the information or observations to avoid the issue dragging on too long. 30. On this basis, the Secretariat wrote letters dated 5 June 2006, 10 October 2006, 7 February 2007, and 24 April 2007, requesting the Respondent State to make its submissions on the admissibility and stipulating time limits within which the State was to make the requisite submission. 31.Rule 117(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission provides that: a Communication may be declared Admissible if the State Party concerned has been given the opportunity to submit the information and observations pursuant to Rule 117(1). 4