59. By two Notes Verbale dated 6th October 1998 and 9th December 1998, the Government of Botswana reiterated its position contained in its earlier Note Verbale of 27th May 1998. 60. On 16th April 1999, INTERIGHTS wrote to the Commission requesting a deferral of the hearing of the case to the 26th Ordinary Session due to Mr Odinkalu’s illness. 61. At the 25th Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Bujumbura, Burundi, the Commission deferred hearing of the communication to its 26th Ordinary Session. 62. On 6th July 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission wrote letters to the parties informing them of the Commission’s decision. 63. On 29th September 1999, the Government of Botswana replied through fax confirming its position contained in its Note Verbale of 9th December 1998, and requesting that the information therein be brought to the attention of the Commissioners and the Legal representatives of the Complainant. 64. On 1st October 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission replied to the said Note Verbale. A copy of the government's response was forwarded to INTERIGHTS for information and necessary action. 65. On 20th October 1999, INTERIGHTS sent to the Secretariat of the Commission its written response to the observations of the Government of Botswana. 66. At its 26th Ordinary Session held in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission reviewed the case and noted that the Government of Botswana had indicated that if it did not hear anything contrary to its position, it would consider the case closed. Since INTERIGHTS had submitted a brief to the contrary, the Commission, therefore, decided to bring it to the attention of the Government of Botswana. A final decision on the merits was deferred to the next ordinary session. 67. The above decision was conveyed to parties on 18th January 2000. A copy of INTERIGHTS' brief was attached to the letter sent to the Government of Botswana. No response has been received from the competent authorities of Botswana. 68. At the 27th Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Algeria from 27th April to 11th May 2000, the Commission examined the case and deferred its further consideration to the next session. 69. The parties were informed of the said decision on 12th July 2000. Law Admissibility 70. This communication has a long history before the Commission. It was declared admissible at the 17th Ordinary Session of the Commission on grounds that local remedies were unduly prolonged and the legal process wilfully obstructed by the government through repeated deportations of the Complainant. The case was later closed because the Commission considered that the Complainant's naturalisation constituted an amicable settlement of the matter. It was however re-opened upon the application of INTERIGHTS on behalf of the Complainant. Merits The State Party's Response 71. The Respondent State later responded to the Commission's request on the terms of the settlement reached with the Complainant. It submitted, among others, that Mr Modise had been naturalised as a Botswana citizen on 28th February 1995. By virtue of that, he enjoyed all the rights