th 45. At its 27 Ordinary Session held in Algeria, the [African] Commission examined the case and deferred its further consideration to the next session. th 46. The [African] Commission‟s decision was communicated to the parties on 20 July 2000. th 47. On 17 August 2000, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission received a Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uganda claiming that it had never been notified of the existence of this communication. st 48. On 21 August 2000, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission replied the said Ministry stating among other things that such notification had long been served the competent authorities of the Republic of Uganda, in 1996, as soon as the case was filed. A copy of the communication was however forwarded to the Ministry. th th th 49. During the 28 Ordinary Session held in Cotonou, Benin, from 26 October to 6 November 2000, the [African] Commission considered the communication and noted that although Ethiopia was a party to the case, it had never received notification of the communication. 50. The [African] Commission therefore asked the Secretariat to check whether Ethiopia had ratified the African Charter at the time the decision on the embargo was taken. 51. If it had, the Secretariat should then send it notification of the communication opposing that embargo and ask for its comments and observations on the issue. 52. Given that Ethiopia ratified the African Charter two years after the decision to impose the embargo on Burundi was taken, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission did not send a copy of the case file to Ethiopia for notification. th 53. The Secretariat acted in this manner in accordance with the decision taken by the 28 Ordinary Session of the [African] Commission. 54. Moreover, this decision of the [African] Commission is in line with the principle of non-retroactivity of the effects of agreements, which is contained in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on [sic] Treaties. th 55. The Secretariat informed the concerned parties about the decision of the 30 Session, and the Tanzanian and Zambian Embassies in Addis Ababa reacted by saying that their respective Governments were never informed of this case and they requested to be given a copy of the case file. 56. In reply, the Secretariat conveyed the documents requested to the two embassies, as well as all necessary information that could help elucidate the progress of the case submitted to the [African] Commission, in respect of which their States had contributed by submitting defence statements. st nd th 57. At the 31 Session (2 to 16 May 2002, Pretoria, South Africa), delegates from some of the accused States (Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) presented some oral comments on the position of their respective governments during the [African] Commission‟s consideration of the communications. 58. The said delegations in turn flatly rejected the allegations levelled against their governments pointing out in a nutshell, that:   The sanctions adopted by the summit of the countries of the Great Lakes region held on st 31 July 1996, in Arusha, Tanzania, was not aimed at providing advantages to the countries that made the decisions but, were meant to put pressure on the government brought about by th the military coup d‟etat of 25 July 1996 in Burundi, with a view to bringing it to restore constitutional legality, democracy, peace and stability. The joint initiative taken by their governments were part of their contribution to the international efforts aimed at promoting the rule of law, in spite of the sacrifices that this initiative entailed for the people of the countries that initiated the embargo against Burundi, who also suffered from the consequences of the said embargo. 59. After the Session, the Secretariat informed the States concerned and the Complainant about the status of the communication by Note Verbale and by letter respectively. nd th rd 60. At the 32 Session held from 17 to 23 October 2002, in Banjul, The Gambia, the [African] Commission was unable to consider the merits of communication, because of time constraints occasioned by the reduction of this Session‟s duration.