23. On 25 June 2007, the Secretariat wrote to both parties informing them that at its 41st Ordinary session the Commission considered the Communication and deferred its decision on the merits to its 42nd Ordinary Session, in order to finalise the draft decision. 24. On 19 December 2007, the Secretariat wrote to both parties informing them that at its 42nd Ordinary Session held from 15 to 28 November 2007 in Brazzaville, Congo, the African Commission considered the Communication and deferred its decisions on the merits to its 43rd Ordinary Session. 25. At its 43rd Ordinary Session held in Ezulwini, Kingdom of Swaziland from 7 – 22 May 2008, the African Commission deferred consideration of the Communication to its 44th Ordinary Session. 26. By Note Verbale of 2 July 2008 and letter of the same date, the Secretariat informed both parties of the Commission's decision. 27. At its 44th Ordinary Session held in Abuja, Federal Republic of Nigeria from 10 – 24 November 2008, the African Commission deferred consideration of the Communication. 28. By Note Verbale of 5 December 2008 and letter of the same date, the Secretariat informed both parties of the Commission's decision. LAW ADMISSIBILITY THE STATE'S SUBMISSION 29. The Respondent State submits that the Communication does not meet the requirements of admissibility under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights because: (i) the Complainants fail to disclose a violation of Article 9 of the 2. Charter and; (ii) the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies as required 3. under Article 56 (5). 4. Non exhaustion of local remedies 30. The Respondent State claims that the Complainants have not approached the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe to seek redress in terms of Section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and, as such, the Communication should be considered inadmissible. 31. Section 24(1) affords every person the opportunity to obtain expeditious redress if any of the rights under the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Zimbabwe are infringed. The Supreme Court has a wide discretion to grant any form of redress in order to enforce the Declaration of Rights. 32. The Respondent State made reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the Association of Independent Journalists case, whereby the Supreme Court struck down Sections 80 (1) (a), (b) and (c) as unconstitutional and the sections were subsequently repealed and substituted through Section 18 of Act 5 of 2003.