29. As no response was received from the Respondent State, the Secretariat informed the Parties that the Commission had decided to give its decision on the merits of the case based on the facts in its possession, in case the Respondent State fails to send its response by 25 November 2012. On the said date, the DRC had still not submitted its memorandum on the merits of the Communication. THE LAW Admissibility The Complainants’ submissions on Admissibility 30. The Complainants allege that the Communication satisfies all the conditions set out in Article 56 of the African Charter. The submissions touch in particular on meeting the requirement of exhausting local remedies as laid down in Article 56 (5). 31. The Complainants submit that local remedies were exhausted, since under the provisions of Article 5 of Decree-Law No 19 indicated in the facts presented, the judgment of the Military Court « can neither be appealed against nor opposed ». 32. While recognizing that the Supreme Court was an existing remedy, the Complainants believe that such a remedy was not available at the time of the case because the transitional Constitution which provided for it only came into effect after the Commission was seized of the matter. Furthermore, they are of the opinion that even if the case had been referred to the Supreme Court, the latter could not have given a ruling on the merits of the case, and thus the remedy would not have been effective. 33. In the same vein, the Complainants allege that the Presidential pardon is not a legal remedy and therefore cannot become an obstacle to referring the matter to the Commission. The Respondent State’s submissions on Admissibility 34. In its written submissions, the Respondent State alleges that the Complainants have not proved that they lodged an appeal against the judgment in contention whereas this remedy was available pursuant to Article 150, paragraph 3 of the Transitional Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Congo. 6