PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court bodies such as national human rights commissions, and discretionary executive relief such as a ‘pardon’, are not considered ‘domestic remedies’.367 According to the Commission, ‘a remedy is available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment; it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success; and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint’.368 There are therefore four exceptions to the general requirement to exhaust domestic remedies: (1) As set out in Article 56(5) of the African Charter, domestic remedies do not need to be exhausted if ‘it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged’; (2) Unavailable remedies; (3) Inadequate or insufficient remedies; (4) Ineffective remedies.369 Availability of Remedies when the Complainant has been Deported or Fled the State in which the Torture Allegedly Took Place A key issue that arises in torture cases is whether domestic remedies can be said to be available to a person who has been deported or who has fled a country. In answering this question, the Commission has not been consistent. In RADDHO v. Zambia,370 the Government of Zambia objected on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to a case filed on behalf of several hundred West African nationals expelled en masse by Zambia. In dismissing Zambia’s objection and upholding the admissibility of the communication, the Commission reasoned that Article 56(5) of the Charter ‘does not mean… that complainants are required to exhaust any local remedy which is found to be, as a practical matter, unavailable or ineffective’.371 The Commission pointed out that the victims and their families were collectively deported without the possibility of a judicial challenge and concluded that the remedies referred to by the Respondent State were as a practical matter unavailable.372 The Commission has upheld this position in subsequent decisions.373 367 ACHPR, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Arab Republic of Egypt, Comm. No. 334/06. 368 ACHPR, Sir Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gambia, Comm. Nos. 147/95 & 149/96, paras. 31-32. 369 Ibid.; ACHPR, Article 19 v. Eritrea, Comm. No. 275/03, para. 46; ACHPR, Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 288/2004, paras. 56-59. 370 ACHPR, Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO) v. Zambia, Comm. No. 71/92. 371 Ibid., para. 12. 372 Ibid., para. 15. 373 ACHPR, IHRDA (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Guinea, Comm. No. 249/02, 26th Ordinary Session (7 December 2004). 89