14. On the 22nd of February in 2022, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainants in terms of Rule 115(4) of the 2020 Rules of Procedure requesting for further particulars on the authority of the representatives to act for the complaints per Rule115(2)(e). 15. The Complainants’ representative wrote back on the 1st of March 2022 retransmitting the initial document that the secretariat took issue with which the complainants had sent at the time of filing the complaint. 16. On the 28th of March 2022, the Secretariat wrote back the Complainants’ representative noting the insufficiency of the document sent in respect of their authority to act and requested that they send a document that complies with Rule 115(2)(e). 17. The Complainants wrote back on the 31st of March 2022 once again re-transmitting the same proof of authority which had been previously rejected by the Secretariat and requesting guidance on why the Secretariat took issue with the submitted document . 18. On the 06th of May 2022, the Secretariat wrote the Complainants highlighting the lack of credible authentication in the document submitted by the representative and requesting that remedy it within 7 days. 19. The Complainants’ representative wrote back on the 16th of May 2022 requesting an extension of 7 more days to submit sufficient proof of authority to act. 20. On the 1st of June 2022, the Secretariat duly granted the request of an extension of 7 days. 21. The Complainants’ representatives submitted the sufficient proof of authority to act on the 7th of June 2022. 22. The Commission considered the complaint and decided to be seized of it at the 72nd Ordinary Session which took place from 19 July to 2 August 2022. 23. By letter dated 10 August 2022, the Complainants where requested to submit their arguments and evidence on admissibility and merits of the communication within 60 days per Rule 116(1) of the 2020 Rules of Procedure. By Note verbal dated the 6