22. At its 31st Ordinary Session, the African Commission heard oral submissions from all the parties nd to the communication and decided to defer consideration of the matter to the 32 Session in order to allow the Complainants time to forward their written responses to the written submissions of Ethiopia. th 23. On 7 June 2002, all the parties to the above-mentioned communication were informed of the African Commission’s decision. INTERIGHTS was requested to forward its written response to the Secretariat of the African Commission within 2 months from the date of notification. th 24. On 30 July 2002, INTERIGHTS was reminded that the Secretariat was awaiting to receive their th written submissions on or before the 7 August 2002. There has been no response from INTERIGHTS thus far. nd 25. At its 32 Ordinary Session, the African Commission heard oral submissions from the State of rd Eritrea and decided to defer consideration of this communication to the 33 Ordinary Session. Parties to the communication were informed accordingly. rd th th 26. At its 33 Ordinary Session, held from 15 to 29 May 2003, in Niamey, Niger, the African Commission decided to suspend consideration of these communications sine die. Law Admissibility 27. The admissibility of communications brought pursuant to Article 55 of the Charter is governed by the conditions stipulated in Article 56 of the Charter. This Article lays down seven (7) conditions, which generally must be fulfilled by a Complainant for a communication to be declared admissible. 28. Of the seven conditions, the government of Ethiopia claims that the Complainants have not fulfilled three; namely Article 56 (1), (5) and (7). Additionally, it questions the neutrality, credibility and integrity of the NGOs submitting the communication. 29. The State of Eritrea on its part claims that the Complainants have not fulfilled two conditions, namely Articles 56 (6) and(7). 30. Article 56 (1) of the African Charter stipulates: “Communications relating to human and peoples’ rights referred to in Article 55 ….. shall be considered if they: (1) Indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity.” 31. The government of Ethiopia submits that the Complainants being NGOs are expected to provide the names of their representatives, and since they failed to do so in their letter of August 1999 the African Commission should reject the communication. 32. Furthermore, the government of Ethiopia questions the neutrality, credibility and integrity of the NGOs submitting the communications. This, the government alleges, is evidenced by the superficial treatment given by the Complainant NGOs to the plight of thousands of Ethiopians suffering in the hands of the Eritrean government whereas with respect to Eritrea, they submitted a detailed verbatim report. Ethiopia thus claims that the submission on Ethiopia is only an attempt by the Complainant to give it a semblance of credibility. 33. The African Commission is of the view that in terms of Article 56 (1) of the African Charter, it is enough if the said complaint bears, as in this case, the name of one of the organisation’s representatives. Thus the present complaint cannot be declared inadmissible on the basis of Article 56 (1). 34. With respect to the question of the neutrality, credibility and integrity of the NGOs submitting the communication, the African Commission does not consider this issue as one that falls within the requirement for the admissibility of the communication as stipulated under Article 56 of the Charter. In any case, the evidence before the African Commission does not lead it to uphold the submission of the government of Ethiopia on the credibility, neutrality and integrity of the NGOs particularly INTERIGHTS which effectively became the Complainant. 35. Article 56 (5) of the African Charter stipulates: “Communications relating to human and peoples rights referred to in Article 55 ….. shall be considered if they: (5) Are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”.