3 national procedural legislation which stipulates that once the exchange of arguments is completed, the case files should be closed in the 5 months that follow. 5 years have passed without any reaction from the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. 54. It is for this reason, pleads the complainant, that although local remedies are available, they do not « at all respond to the imperative of efficacy which is their raison d’être ». The complainant adds that the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court is familiar with this type of practices, which is 4 why Cameroon had been condemned by the African Commission (for a case which had remained pending for 12 years before the Yaoundé Court of Appeal) as well as by the United Nations Human 5 Rights Commission (for a case which had remained pending before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court for more than 4 years). th 55. During a hearing at the 34 Ordinary Session of the African Commission, the complainant party had reiterated these arguments insisting on the fact that the bringing of this case before the African Commission had contributed a lot to the revival of the case by the Cameroon legal Authorities after all these years of inaction. th 56. In its memorandum with supplementary information on admissibility, dated 18 March 2004, the complainant recalled that the Respondent State had been condemned by the African Commission and by the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the slowness of its justice system. These delays, which cannot be attributed to Cameroon’s underdevelopment, but rather, according to the complainant, « to the inefficiency of the Cameroonian national Authorities, both legal and administrative » are not only contrary to the African Charter but also to the principles of the right to a fair hearing adopted by the African Commission. 57. The complainant further reiterates that the violation, according to him, by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, of the regulations which stipulate that once the exchanges of memoranda are completed, the latter should close the case file within 5 months, as since August 1998, the complainants had not received any news from the said Chamber in spite of several reminders and, according to the complainants, despite the fact that the Judges of this Court were « perfectly aware of the implications of this procedure for the complainants ». 58. The complainant party moreover denounces the attitude of the powers that be, who had made promises which never culminated in results, but above all the shortcomings of the Cameroonian Authorities exposed by the mal-functioning of the Commission responsible for compensating the victims of the violence (placed under the Prime Minister’s Office), which had been created in the context of the effort to find an amicable solution to the problem. This Commission, declares the complainant, had been one of the local remedies open to the victims. But 12 years after its creation and 11 years after having heard the victims, this Commission had still not submitted its report. There again, concludes the complainant, the delay is unduly prolonged. The complainant therefore implores the African Commission to declare the complaint admissible. Arguments of the Respondent State on the admissibility of the case 59. The Respondent State had for its part pleaded, during the hearing before the African Commission th at its 34 Ordinary Session, that the delays observed in the administration of justice in Cameroon are due to the under developed nature of the country, which does not have the means to provide all the facilities required for a diligent justice system, and not to a deliberate desire by the Government to hinder the administration of justice. 60. The Respondent State again reiterated this point during a hearing by the African Commission at th its 35 Ordinary Session. In its memorandum on admissibility submitted on this occasion, the Respondent State pleads that the complaint is still under consideration before one of the highest national Courts which, certainly has a lot of backlog in its work, but which is aware of the situation and that the Parties require that the case be concluded by the national legal Authorities. Thus, on the th st 25 February and the 31 March 2004, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court held two st ordinary sessions. The debate on the case in question, scheduled for the 31 March 2004 had been th postponed to the 26 May 2004 on the request of the Counsel for the complainants.