The Law Admissibility Summary of the complainant’s arguments on admissibility of the communication 28. The Complainant states that a letter was addressed to the President of Sudan HE Omar El Bashir requesting him to intervene in the matter and resolve the case. (Attachment No. 7). 29. After studying the relevant documents relating to this matter, the Solicitor General, on th 5 September 2000 forwarded a legal opinion to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning confirming that the victims were entitled to the payment of the outstanding balance held by the said Ministry. (Attachment No.9). th 30. On 28 August 2001, Dr Maghzoub Al Khalifa, the then Chair of the Joint Iraqi-Sudanese Ministerial Committee and a former Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of Sudan, sent a letter to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning reminding them of the agreement between the Sudanese and Iraqi governments and requesting them to pay the victims the outstanding amounts without delay. (Attachment No. 8). Complainant states that since attempts at solving the matter amicably had failed, the victims decided to pursue the matter in the courts of law. th 32. The Complainant states that on 18 June 2000, the victims in this matter filed a complaint against the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning before the Court of First Instance in Khartoum. The st case - No. AM/1724/2000 was dismissed by the Court on 21 March 2000 (Attachment No. 10). The victims appealed against the judgment of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal in case th no. ASM/475/2001. On 7 July 2001, the Court of Appeal issued an order to the Court of First Instance th to reconsider its judgement and on 19 February 2002 the Court of First Instance dismissed the case once again. (Attachment No. 10). 33. The victims appealed against the second judgment of the Court of First Instance to the Court of th Appeal in Khartoum in Case No. ASM/250/2002) and on 26 December 2002, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the case. (Attachment No. 11). 34. The victims approached the High Court in Khartoum, Civil Circuit in case MA/TM/165/2003 for an th injunction against the ruling of the Court of Appeal. However, on 18 June 2003, the High Court decided to uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the matter. (Attachment No. 11). The complainants allege that the decisions of the court of first instance, Court of Appeal and the High Court, to dismiss the case, were based on technicalities and not on the spirit of justice, law and good conscience. 35. Consequently, the Complainant submits that the victims have exhausted all domestic remedies th by virtue of the ruling of the High Court on 18 June 2003, which dismissed the case. 36. The Complainant submits that when reaching their judgments, the courts neglected to take into account elementary facts that would have favoured the victims’ case. For instance, the fact that the victims received a part payment in respect of the agreement reached between Sudan and Iraq and that the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning made an undertaking to pay the victims the outstanding balance; failure to take into account the legal opinion of the Solicitor General stating that he was not a witness to specific incidents. They also claim that the decisions of these Courts to dismiss the matter were based on technicalities and not on the spirit of fairness, law and justice. 37. The Complainant submits further that the Sudanese domestic courts are not competent to deal with a case of such magnitude and notes that the High Court when delivering its judgement in respect of the application for an injunction stated that the amount of financial indemnification claimed in this case supersedes the amount fixed by the Judicial Circular No. 44/99 which is a necessary condition for acceptance of an injunction before the High Court. 38. Additionally, the Complainant avers that the courts in Sudan failed to take into consideration the fact that the then ruling regime in Iraq was totalitarian and that the one in Sudan is military and as such citizens are unable to interfere with government decisions or procure the necessary documents that could prove their cases in a court of law.