th 25. By Note Verbale dated 27 January 2005, the State of Eritrea wrote to the Secretariat of the African Commission requesting the African Commission to dismiss the communication on the grounds that: one of the subjects of the communication had already been dealt in another communication ( 250/2002) and therefore would constitute a case of double jeopardy, and that the Complainant had appeared before the African Commission only once despite repeated requests to‘face and question the accuser – a legal right which was denied them’…by the African Commission. rd 26. By Note Verbale dated 23 February 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the Respondent State’s Note Verbale and informed the Respondent State th that its request would be put before the African Commission for consideration during the 37 Ordinary Session. th 27. By letter dated 24 February 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the Complainant that the Respondent State had requested the African Commission to reconsider its decision on the communication and declare the latter inadmissible. th 28. By letter dated 30 March 2005, the Complainant acknowledged receipt of the Secretariat’s letter th of 24 February 2005. The Complainant indicated that they were of the belief that the African Commission had thoroughly examined the communication before arriving at the decision on admissibility and therefore urged the African Commission to consider the communication on its merits. th 29. By letter dated 5 April 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of th the Complainant’s letter of 30 March 2005 and requested it to submit its arguments on the merits or confirm whether the arguments contained in its complaint were sufficient. th 30. By letter dated 13 April 2005, the Complainant acknowledged receipt of the Secretariat’s letter th of 5 April 2005 and indicated that in their earlier submissions they had addressed themselves on the merits [of] the communication but further indicated that they were available to make oral submissions on the same. th 31. By letter dated 13 April 2005, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainant’s letter th and informed them that the communication had been scheduled for consideration at the 37 Ordinary Session of the African Commission. th 32. At its 37 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission deferred further consideration of the communication due to the absence of the rapporteur of the communication. th 33. By Note Verbale and a letter dated 10 June 2005, the Respondent State and the Complainant were respectively notified of the African Commission’s decision. th th 34. At its 38 Ordinary Session held from 21st November to 5 December 2005, in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the Respondent State’s request that the communication be dismissed but decided to confirm its decision on admissibility. th 35. By Note Verbale and a letter dated 15 December 2005, the Respondent State and the Complainant were respectively notified of the African Commission’s decision and requested the parties to submit their arguments on the merits of the communication. th 36. On 6 March 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission wrote to the parties reminding them to submit their arguments on the merits before the end of March 2006. rd 37. By electronic mail dated 3 May 2006, the Complainant re-submitted its arguments on the merits of the communication, which was immediately communicated to the Respondent State for its comments. th 38. By Note Verbale dated 19 May 2006, the Respondent State submitted its arguments on the merits of the communication. th th th 39. At its 39 Ordinary Session held from 11 to 25 May 2006, the African Commission decided to th defer consideration of the merits to the 40 Ordinary Session, in order to allow the Secretariat to consider the parties’ arguments and draft an opinion on the merits. 40. By Note Verbale and letter dated 31st May 2006, the Respondent State and the Complainant were respectively notified of the African Commission’s decision. th th 41. By letter dated 17 October 2006 and Note Verbale dated 18 October 2006, the Complainant and the Respondent State respectively were reminded that the African Commission would consider th the merits of the communication at its 40 Ordinary Session.