Company to pay him the sum of 500,000 U.S. dollars. The Complainant avers that the award was annulled by the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court following the appeal for annulment lodged by Pharmakina Company; and that to secure the retraction of this judgment delivered in the first and last instance in his disfavour, the President of the National Bar Association instituted third-party proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Complainant further contends that the Supreme Court has still not yet issued its decision four years after the institution of the third-party proceedings. Arguments of the Respondent State on Admissibility 43. The DRC argues that the Communication brought against it by the Complainant, Mr Mamboleo, is inadmissible. The Respondent State bases its argument on Article 56 (5), claiming that the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies, since the action for annulment of the contested decision is still pending before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the DRC. 44. As such, the DRC prays the Commission to declare the complaint inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 45. From the analysis of the arguments of both the Complainant and the Respondent State, it appears that the parties agree on most of the admissibility conditions. It is clear, after considering the arguments of the Complainant that the conditions under Article 55 (1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the African Charter have been met. 46. However, the parties disagree on the point relating to the exhaustion of local remedies. Indeed, Article 56 (5) provides that Communications must be “sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. 47. The issue raised at this point of consideration of the complaint is as follows: were local remedies exhausted in this case or were they unduly prolonged? 48. The use of the rule of prior exhaustion of local remedies in litigations under international human rights law is derived from international law, in general, and specifically diplomatic law of essentially customary origin. This rule is based on the idea that a State should be given the opportunity to right the 7