attached to the communication to confirm their authorization to the author to present the case on their behalf. CEMIRIDE therefore lacks locus standi to make the application. ii. There is lack of information regarding CEMIRIDE’s representatives, thus making the communication frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and therefore inadmissible. iii. CEMIRIDE has not demonstrated that it is not a busy body. iv. There is no evidence of CEMIRIDE having Observer Status before the Commission v. CEMIRIDE being a nationally registered NGO lacks locus to bring international claims. b) Non-Exhaustion of Local Remedies CEMIRIDE has not demonstrated that it has moved the Kenyan courts for any remedy. It should have exhausted the Court process in Kenya which is a process that can be accessed without impediment. In addition, it should have sought administrative and quasi-judicial remedies, specifically from the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights. c) Res judicata and reopening of cases CEMIRIDE should have sought the reopening of a case, Kimei & 9 Others v The Attorney General whose subject matter is the same as that in respect of which the communication was filed before claiming a violation of Article 7 of the Charter. d) Location of the subject matter of the dispute i. The Respondent contends that the eviction notice issued in October 2009 targeted a specific area of the Mau, yet the communication claims that the