51. The Complainants refer to Sir Dawda K Jawara v. The Gambia, (the Jawara Case)3 to sustain that the rationale behind Article 56(5) of the African Charter is to provide the State concerned with an opportunity to remedy alleged violations through its domestic legal system, and that in the current case the Respondent State has been given an opportunity to investigate, prosecute and remedy the alleged violations. They also refer to Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan4 to argue AC HP R 52. that in cases where it is “impractical or undesirable” for the Complainants or Victims to seize the domestic courts, the requirement of local remedies should not be applied literally, and that domestic remedies must be effective and not subordinated to the discretionary power of public authorities. 53. Furthermore, the Complainants refer to similar requirements of exhaustion of local remedies in the context of the European Court of Human Rights (the European Court), where the exhaustion of all possible remedies within the criminal system does not require making another attempt to obtain redress by a civil action for damages.5 The Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 54. In its submission, the Respondent State argues that the Communication is inadmissible before the African Commission for two reasons. Firstly, 3 Communications 147/95 and 149/96- Sir Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gambia (2000) ACHPR. 4 Communication 48/90, 50/91, 89/93- Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v. Sudan(1999) ACHPR. 5 The Complainants refer to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, (1998), para 86. 12