conclusion of the trial, thereby denying the accused of their right to appeal against the decision promptly. 7. The Complainant, moreover, alleges that these trials sought to punish the accused for opinions lawfully held and disseminated by them, that there were no domestic remedies for the pre-trial and trial rights violations as Law No. 105 of 1980 setting up the Supreme State Security Courts denies the accused of full rights of appeal, that they could only appeal on procedural points to the Court of Cassation and not on substantive issues, that the Court of Cassation cannot acquit the accused in such an appeal, that the said Court of Cassation can only order a re-trial which would effectively subject the accused to second jeopardy, and that an acquittal in an appeal by Cassation can only be ordered should a second appeal against a re-trial [be] successful. Complaint 8. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 5, 6, 7(1)(a-d) and 9(2) of the African Charter. 9. The Complainant prays for the African Commission to request the Respondent State to: • Take steps to vacate the conviction of the accused and take all other steps necessary to ensure adequate redress to the latter due to the violations of Articles 7 and 9(2) of the Charter; and • Adequately compensate the accused for violation of their rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter. Procedure th th 10. The complaint was dated 24 December 2001 and received at the Secretariat on 26 December nd 2001 by fax and on 2 January 2002 by mail. 11. After registering the complaint, the Secretariat learnt that the matter was pending before the th Court of Cassation of the Respondent State. On 24 January 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant acknowledging receipt of the complaint and requesting the latter further clarification on the status of the appeal before the said Court. nd th 12. At its 31st Ordinary Session held from 2 to 16 May 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa, the African Commission considered the complaint and decided to be seized thereof. th 13. On 28 May 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant and the Respondent State of this nd decision and requested them to forward their submissions on admissibility before the 32 Ordinary Session of the African Commission. nd th rd 14. At its 32 Ordinary Session held from 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the complaint and decided to defer its consideration on admissibility to rd the 33 Ordinary Session. th 15. On 7 November 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainants and Respondent State to inform them of this decision. 16. The two parties forwarded their submissions on admissibility to the Secretariat each party was given copies of submissions from the other party. th 17. On 9 April 2003, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat informing it that the Court of Cassation in Egypt had acquitted Professor Saadeddin Ibrahim. The Complainant also requested the withdrawal of its communication concerning Dr Saadeddin Ibrahim. th 18. By fax dated 17 April 2003, the Complainant confirmed that its request for withdrawal was made on behalf of all the alleged victims in the communication. Holding For the above-mentioned reason, the African Commission, Takes note of the withdrawal of the communication by the Complainant and decides to close the file. rd Taken at the 33 Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger May 2003.