18. The Secretariat also on numerous occasions by telephone and in writing reminded the Solicitor General of the Respondent State to ensure that their written submissions on this matter are forwarded to the Secretariat. 19. At the 31st Ordinary Session held from 2nd to 16th May 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa, the African Commission considered the communication and it was declared admissible. 20. On 29th May 2002, the Secretariat informed the parties of the decision of the African Commission and requested them to transmit their written submissions on admissibility to the Secretariat within a period of three (3) months. 21. At its 32nd Ordinary Session held from 17th to 23rd October in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission decided to defer consideration of the communication on the merits and the parties were informed accordingly. 22. By a Note Verbale dated 30th October 2002, the Respondent State was reminded to forward its written submissions on the merits to the Secretariat of the African Commission within a period of two (2) months. 23. At its 33rd Ordinary Session held from 15th to 29th May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African Commission considered this communication and decided to deliver its decision on the merits. Law Admissibility 24. Article 56 of the African Charter governs admissibility of communications brought before the African Commission in accordance with Article 55 of the African Charter. All of the conditions of this Article are met by the present communication. Only Article 56(5), which requires that local remedies be exhausted, necessitates close scrutiny. Article 56(5) of the African Charter provides: "Communications ... received by the African Commission shall be considered if they: (5) are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 25. The rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies as a condition of the presentation of a complaint before the African Commission is premised on the principle that the Respondent State must first have an opportunity to redress by its own means within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual. 26. The Complainants submit that they could not exhaust local remedies because there are no provisions in the national laws of The Gambia allowing for the Complainants to seek remedies where a violation has occurred. 27. The Respondent State concedes that the [LDA] does not contain any provisions for the review or appeal against an order of detention or any remedy for detention made in error or wrong diagnosis or treatment. Neither do the patients have the legal right to challenge the two separate medical certificates, which constitute the legal basis of their detention. 28. The Respondent State submits that in practice patients found to be insane are informed that they have a right to ask for a review of their assessment. The Respondent State further states that there are legal provisions or procedures within the Gambia that such a vulnerable group of persons could have utilised for their protection. Section 7(d) of the Constitution of The Gambia recognises that Common Law forms part of the laws of The Gambia. As such, Respondent State argues, the Complainants could seek remedies by bringing an action in tort for false imprisonment or negligence where a patient held at Campama Psychiatric Unit is wrongly diagnosed. 29. The Respondent State further submits that patients detained under the [LDA] have every right to challenge the Act in a Constitutional Court claiming that their detention under that Act deprives them of their right to freedom of movement and association as provided for under the Gambian Constitution. 30. The concern raised in the present communication is that in The Gambia, there are no review or appeal procedures against determination or certification of one's mental state for both involuntary and voluntary mental patients. Thus the legislation does not allow for the correction of an error assuming a wrong certification or wrong diagnosis has been made, which presents a problem in this particular case where examination of the said mental patients is done by general practitioners and not psychiatrists. So if an error is made and there is no avenue to appeal or review the medical practitioners' assessment, there is a great likelihood that a person could be wrongfully detained in a mental institution. 31. Furthermore, the [LDA] does not lay out fixed periods of detention for those persons found to be of unsound mind, which, coupled with the absence of review or appeal procedures could lead into a situation 2