terms of the Act, the President’s decisions are not subject to disclosure or challenge in a court of law and he did not act ultra vires. 51. The Complainants submit that the Court of Appeal is the highest judicial authority in Botswana and no further right of appeal or challenge lies from the decision of this Court. 52. As a result of the above, the Complainants argue that all domestic remedies available in the Respondent State have been exhausted for the purpose of Article 56.5. They also submit that the communication is brought before the Commission within three months of having exhausted such domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 56.6. Respondent State’s Submissions 53. In its submissions, the Respondent State challenges the Commission’s existence and its competence to hear the case. Regarding the existence of the Commission, the Respondent State submits that the Commission was established within the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and that the OAU ceased to exist in July 2001, and no provision was made for the continuance of the work of the Commission in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) that took over from the OAU. 54. The State further submits that Article 5 of the Constitutive Act, which lists the AU Organs, does not mention the African Commission, and that the AU did not make use of the capacity vested in it under Article 9(1) (d) of the Constitutive Act to establish any other organ to bring the Commission back to existence. The Respondent State therefore concludes that the Commission has ceased to exist along with the OAU. 55. However, the Respondent State does not challenge the existence of the African Charter, which it considers a “mere instrument of noble ideals which unfortunately is devoid of any operational structures…”. 56. With respect to the Commission’s competence rationae materae (subject matter of the communication), the Respondent State holds that the communication concerns immigration matters which are not part of the mandate of the Commission spelled out in Article 45 of the Charter. The State submits further that in terms of Article 13 of the Constitutive Act, it is the Executive Council which is responsible for immigration matters. 57. The Respondent State argues that in case the Commission finds itself to be in existence and to have jurisdiction over the matter, the communication should notwithstanding be declared inadmissible for non-compliance with Article 56 of the African Charter. 58. It is the State’s view that the communication is not compatible with the African Charter. It submits that not all the elements of the communication have been disclosed to the State, placing the latter “in an untenable position where it does not know the exact nature of the Complaint against it,” and that therefore the communication is irregular and/or non-compliant with Rule 104(e) as read with Article 56.2 of the African Charter. 59. The Respondent State also states that Article 23.1 of the African Charter recognises peoples’ rights to national and international peace and security, and that Article 12.2 allows States Parties to restrict the right to freedom of movement by means of law for the “protection of national security, law and order…”. The State holds that the interpretation of these provisions is that “States must be left alone and allowed to deal with matters of peace and national security”. The Respondent State submits that the matter before the Commission involves national security and that the Commission has no competence over it. 60. The Respondent State further submits that the decision to expel the victim was taken by the President in accordance with the law as required under Article 12.4 of the African Charter. 61. The Respondent State argues that the victim’s expulsion was confirmed by the courts and that the State has the obligation under Article 26 of the Charter to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and cannot interfere with their rulings. 62. The Respondent State also states that the victim’s appeal to courts in Botswana was dismissed with costs, which he has not yet paid, and that by instituting proceedings before the Commission he is just trying to escape his obligation in Botswana. The State concludes that the communication is frivolous and vexatious, and that it should be rejected and held inadmissible.