13. On 13th May 1993, a letter was addressed to Mr John K. Modise informing him that the communication had been examined at the 13th Session, and that the Commission required some clarifications from him regarding the exhaustion of local remedies. 14. A second notification was addressed to the government on 12th August 1993. There was still no response from the government. 15. On 7th September 1993, the Complainant replied to the Secretariat’s letter dated 13th May 1993, emphasising that he had exhausted the available local remedies. He added that he could no longer pursue his case before the national jurisdictions due to lack of financial resources. 16. Another notification was sent to the government on 29th January 1994, with a copy to the Complainant. 17. On 30th January 1994, the Secretary to the Commission received correspondence from the spouse of the Complainant, stressing that Mr John K. Modise had no more money to pursue the case brought before the national jurisdiction, since he had been forced into exile and that he had suffered heavy financial losses due to the confiscation of his belongings by the Botswana Police. 18. On 22nd February 1994, the Complainant acknowledged receipt of the copy of the notification addressed by the Secretariat to the government on 29th January 1994. He also called on the Commission to consider his case, as he believed that he had exhausted all the available local remedies. A short chronicle of the case was attached to the said correspondence. 19. The Complainant wrote again on 24th October 1994 in reply to the Secretariat’s correspondence dated 8th August 1994, to confirm having exhausted local remedies. 20. At its 16th Session held in October 1994, the Commission re-examined the communication and decided to defer its decision until it received information on the manner in which other human rights bodies handle cases involving Complainants that lack financial means. 21. At the 17th Session, the communication was declared admissible. It was considered appropriate to assign the case to the Commissioner covering Botswana to deal with under his human rights promotion activities. Consequently, responsibility was assigned to Commissioner Janneh. However, no concrete measures were taken. 22. On 20th April 1995, a correspondence was dispatched to the Complainant to inform him of the decision regarding the admissibility of the communication. 23. On 18th May 1995, a letter was received from the European Commission on Human Rights in reply to the Secretariat’s request regarding the issue of financial difficulties. 24. On 26th May 1995, a correspondence was sent to the Botswana government to inform it of the decision on admissibility taken by the Commission and to request it to consider an amicable settlement of the case. There was no response from the Government of Botswana. 25. On 23rd September 1995, the Commission received a correspondence dated 15th May 1995 from the non-governmental organisation, INTERIGHTS informing it that it had been designated by Mr Modise to represent him at the next session of the Commission. In this regard, Mr Modise’s letter to INTERIGHTS dated 2nd December 1994 was annexed to the said correspondence. 26. The same envelope contained a second letter from INTERIGHTS dated 15th May, stating that the NGO had just been informed of the decision on admissibility taken by the Commission at its 17th Session and requesting, therefore, that a formal notification of the said admissibility be addressed to it. INTERIGHTS also enclosed an explanatory note on the case and the demands of the Complainant, and indicated its intention to be present at Praia, at the 18th Session, to argue the case.