the East African Court, a regional judicial mechanism which is capable of granting declaratory or compensatory relief, is one of the mechanisms envisaged under Article 56(7) of the Charter. 70. The Commission also notes that the Judgment of the Katabazi case was delivered on 01 November 2007, essentially rendering the matter settled. 71. Having established that the Katabazi case has been settled by a regional mechanism which falls within the scope of Article 56(7), the Commission will proceed to determine whether the present Communication involves the same parties and the same issues as the case before East African Court. 72. Regarding the question of whether the same parties were before the East African Court and the African Commission, the Commission notes that the case before the East African Court was brought against the Republic of Uganda by twenty two (22) applicants, only one of whom is named; that is James Katabazi. However, in the letter dated 13 August 2012, the Complainants conceded that the Victims were indeed party to this case before the East African Court of Justice. 73. The Commission further notes that while the Complainants have asserted that the Victims “withdrew instructions and their participation before the East African Court and opted to give their consent to Human Rights Network (HURINET) and ISISWICCE to bring their complaint before the African Commission,”23 the Complainants have not adduced evidence to support the assertion that the Victims withdrew from the Katabazi case. The Commission further notes that the Respondent State averred that the Victims were applicants in the Katabazi case, 24 however did not adduce any additional evidence in support of this claim. 74. In light of the dearth of evidence to support or rebut this claim, the Commission requested confirmation from the Registrar of the East African Court that the Victims withdrew from the Katabazi case before the judgment was delivered. To this end, the Commission has established that “Mr. Patrick Okiring and Mr. Samson Agupio who were the 19th and 21st Applicants in the Reference, discontinued their reference against all the Respondents by a notice lodged in this Court on 11th July 2007.”25 As a result, the Commission is of the view that the matter has not been settled with respect to the Victims, because they were not party to the suit when the judgment was rendered by the East African Court on 01 November 2007. 75. In light of the above, the Commission finds that the requirement of Article 56(7) has been met. 76. Accordingly, the Commission declares this Communication admissible. 23 Letter from the Complainants, Reference: HUR/95/10, 13 August 2012 Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uganda, Reference: AOG70/153/01, 01 October 2012 25 Letter from the East African Court, Reference: EACJ/C-4/VOL.1/23/13, 13 February 2013 24 13