36. Regarding the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, the government of Ethiopia submits that the Complainants have not availed themselves of the remedies available at the local courts before approaching the African Commission. 37. The Complainant asserts, and the African Commission is of the opinion that there were no domestic remedies available to the Complainants, as a practical matter in this case. In coming to this decision the African Commission relies on its decision on the issue in communication 71/92 Rencontre africaine pour la défense des Droits de l’Homme/Zambia, a case that involved mass deportation and transfer of multiple victims. In this case the African Commission observed: “The mass nature of the arrests, the fact that victims were kept in detention prior to their expulsion, and the speed with which the expulsions were carried out gave the Complainants no opportunity to establish the legality of these actions in the courts. For Complainants to contact their families, much less attorneys was not possible. Thus the recourse referred to by the government … was, as a practical matter, not available to the Complainants.” 38. The government of Eritrea alleges that the Complainant has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under Article 56 (6) of the African Charter. Article 56 (6) of the African Charter reads: “Communications relating to human and peoples’ rights referred to in Article 55….. shall be considered if they: (6) are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the commission is seized with the matter. ” 39. The African Commission is of the view that bearing in mind its decision in relation to Article 56 (5) compliance with the provisions of Article 56 (6) of the African Charter by the Complainant is rendered inapplicable. 40. Both the governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia also raise an objection to the African Commission admitting the communications stating that the Complainants did not comply with the provisions of Article 56 (7) of the African Charter. th 41. At its 27 Ordinary Session held in Algeria, after hearing the representatives of the parties on the admissibility of the case, the African Commission decided to declare both communications admissible. th 42. It is to be recalled that at its 29 Ordinary Session held in Libya, the African Commission heard oral submissions from all the parties and decided to consolidate Communications 233/99 and 234/99. The African Commission also postponed further consideration on the merits of the case to the th 30 Ordinary Session and invited parties to the communication 233/99 and 234/99 to submit arguments for the purpose of clarifications in terms of Rule 104 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission. Clarifications Sought by the African Commission in Terms of Rule 104 of the Rules of Procedure The desirability or otherwise of considering the communications under Article 47 - 54 of the African Charter 43. The Respondent States argue that it is undesirable that the communications before the African Commission be converted into State-to-State proceedings. The government of Ethiopia takes this position because the two countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea have already negotiated and signed a Peace Agreement with regard to the conflict that gave rise to the human rights violations that were committed by the respective States. Therefore the African Commission should discontinue considering the complaints before it and let the Ethio-Eritrean Claims Commission handle the matters raised within the complaints. 44. The communications presently before the African Commission are governed by Articles 55 - 57 of the Charter, a category of cases clearly distinct from complaints governed by Articles 47 - 54 of the Charter. The provisions of the African Charter and the Rules of Procedure do not provide for any procedure to convert non-State communications into inter-state communications. The initiation of an inter-state complaint is dependent on the voluntary exercise of the sovereign will of a State party to the Charter, which decision can only be made by States in accordance with the Charter. From the