Further referring to the principle that the Respondent State must first have an opportunity to redress the alleged wrong within its own legal system. 59. The Respondent State further asserts that the judicial system of Sudan is easily accessible, effective and independent, as guaranteed by the Constitution, stating that the Complainant is thus casting unfounded aspersions in respect of the availability and effectiveness of local remedies. In addition, the State asserts that contrary to the submission by the Complainant that there is no provision in the law for the remedy of habeas corpus, the Constitutional Court Act of 2005 in Section 16 provides for the Court to have the power "to make an order to anybody or person requiring him to bring before the court the arrested or detained person to consider the constitutionality of the arrest or detention", and further that Section 24 makes the decisions and orders of the Court binding on all levels of government, the national and state organs as well as the entire public. 60. The State submits that the only action taken by the Complainant to exhaust local remedies was the complaint filed on his behalf with the NHRC. The State submits that while the NHRC is independent of the judiciary it is competent to consider human rights violations, but that the Complainant failed to appear before the police administration inquiry committee "established to investigate his complaint within the process of the NHRC's consideration of his case", which record is still open. The State thus submits that the Complainant cannot be considered to have exhausted or attempted to exhaust local remedies. 61. The State in addition submits that contrary to the assertions of the Complainant, ill-treatment during detention or custody is prohibited and criminalised, and that the police immunity referred to in the Complaint is procedural only and does not extend to unauthorised or unlawful acts, and thus that it is common practice to lift such immunities in cases of violations of human rights, noting that more than 300 instances of lifting of immunities of police and NISS members took place in the last two years. 62. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant did not file the Complaint within a reasonable time as required under Article 56(6) of the Charter, stating that he had remained free in his country for two months after his arrest and thereafter of his free will left the country, filing the Complaint only eleven (11) months later. The State submits that the Complainant has not provided a manifestly reasonable justification for this delay.