PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court legal procedures available without legal aid’.398 Because the limited legal aid under Gambian law did not in practice extend to them, the Commission found that the victims (and presumably also the complainants) were not required to exhaust local remedies.399 Large-Scale Violations of Human Rights and Impunity The Commission has taken the view that the rule concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies is dispensed with in cases of serious and large-scale violations of human rights. Thus the Commission holds that it must read Article 56(5) in the light of its duty to: ensure the protection of the human and peoples’ rights …. The Commission cannot hold the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is impractical or undesirable for the complainant to seize the domestic courts in the case of each individual complaint. This is the case where there are a large number of individual victims. Due to the seriousness of the human rights situation as well as the number of people involved, such remedies as might exist in the domestic courts are as a practical matter unavailable or, in the words of the Charter, ‘unduly prolonged’.400 This exception relates to both the availability and effectiveness of remedies. In Sudan Human Rights Organisation and COHRE v. Sudan, the Commission similarly held that ‘the scale and nature of the alleged abuses, the number of persons involved ipso facto make local remedies unavailable, ineffective and insufficient’.401 A regime of impunity for torture would trigger an exception to the exhaustion requirement. The African Commission took this view in OMCT et al. v. Rwanda, in which it considered the Rwandan Government’s mass expulsion of BaTutsi Burundian refugees to Burundi. In its 1996 decision, the Commission held, on the question of admissibility, that ‘in view of the vast and varied scope of the violations alleged and the large number of individuals involved... remedies need not be exhausted’.402 On the merits, the Commission found multiple violations of the African Charter, including due process rights and the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 398 Ibid., para. 35. 399 Ibid., paras. 37-38. 400 ACHPR, Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 140/94, 141/94,145/95, 26th Ordinary Session (5 November 1999), paras. 56-57. 401 ACHPR, Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, Comm. Nos. 279/03 & 296/05, para. 100. 402 ACHPR, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture (OMCT) and Others v. Rwanda, Comm. Nos. 27/89, 49/91 & 99/93, para.17; but see, Mouvement des Refugies Mauritaniens au Senegal v. Senegal, Comm. No. 162/97,162/97, 22nd Ordinary Session (11 November 1997) in which the Commission, on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, declined to consider a communication initiated on behalf of Mauritanian refugees in Senegal who alleged wide ranging violations against Senegalese security forces. 95