23. On 21 April 2003, the Secretariat sent a reminder to the Complainants requesting them to forward their clarifications. By a letter dated 8 May 2003, Counsel for the Complainants sent the clarifications sought by the Secretariat. rd 24. At its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15-29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to be seized of the matter. 25. On 9 June 2003, the Secretariat informed the parties that the African Commission had been seized with the matter and requested them to forward their submissions on admissibility within 3 months. 26. On 9 September 2003, the Complainants informed the Secretariat that they would be forwarding th their submissions on admissibility and requested to make oral submissions at the 34 Session of the African Commission. 27. On 22 September 2003, the Secretariat received the Complainant’s submissions on admissibility along with supplemental evidence. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt thereof on the same day. 28. On 3 October 2003, the Respondent State informed the Secretariat that it had not received a th copy of the communication forwarded to it by DHL on 9 June 2003. 29. On 6 October 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant requesting for another copy of the supplemental evidence to be forwarded to the Respondent State. 30. On 27 October 2003, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of the Complainant’s submissions on admissibility to the Respondent State and informed the latter that the Secretariat would give the th accompanying documents to the delegation of Cameroon attending the 34 Ordinary Session. The Secretariat also informed the Respondent State that the DHL office in Cameroon had confirmed delivery of the communication. 31. On 27 October 2003, the Secretariat received another copy of the supplemental evidence from the Complainant for onward transmission to the Respondent State. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the same. th th th 32. At its 34 Ordinary Session held from 6 to 20 November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the matter and decided to defer consideration on admissibility of the th matter to the 35 Ordinary Session because the Respondent State claimed that they were unaware of the communication. 33. On 14 November 2003, the Secretariat furnished the delegates representing the Respondent th State at the 34 Ordinary Session with the following documents -: - A copy of communication 266/2003; - A copy of the Complainants’ submissions on admissibility and the accompanying documents. 34. On 4 December 2003, both parties to the communication were informed of the decision of the th African Commission to defer consideration of the matter on admissibility to the 35 Ordinary Session. The Respondent State was reminded to forward its submissions on admissibility to the Secretariat of the African Commission within 3 months. 35. On 5 March 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission received the Respondent State’s submissions on admissibility and acknowledged receipt of the same on 9 March 2004. th 36. At its 35 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 21 May-4 June 2004, the African Commission heard the oral submissions of the parties, and declared the communication admissible. 37. On 15 June 2004, the Secretariat informed the parties about the African Commission’s decision and requested them to submit their written submissions on the merits within 3 months. 38. On 13 August 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission received a correspondence from the Respondent State, which was forwarded to the Complainant on 26 August 2004. 39. On 20 September 2004, the Secretariat received the written submissions of the Respondent State on merits, which was transmitted to the Complainants on 12 November 2004. 40. On 23 and 28 September 2004, the Secretariat received the written submissions of the Complainants on the merits, which was transmitted to the Respondent State on 12 November 2004. th 41. At its 36 Ordinary Session held in Dakar, Senegal from 24 November-7 December 2004, the African Commission decided to defer its consideration on the merits to the next session. It also rejected an application to stay the proceedings by third parties purporting to represent the applicants claiming to have entered into negotiation with the Respondent State.