55. The Complainant confirms that in compliance with Article 56(7), the Complaint has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. In conclusion he thus submits that he has satisfied all the criteria under Article 56 and that the Commission should find the Communication admissible. The Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 56. In its response to the admissibility submissions of the Complainant, the State first raised a number of factual issues, firstly alleging that the Complainant was not arrested by the NISS, but rather by the police, in accordance with Section 5 of the Emergency and Public Safety Protection Act of (1997) on suspicion of involvement in an act which contraYenes the proclamation of the state of emergency declared in line with Article 210 of the Interim National Constitution of the Republic of Sudan and in response to security instability and armed conflict in the area. They further submit that the Complainant had been informed of the reasons for his arrest and treated in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1991. Thirdly, the Respondent State states that in response to the complaint filed with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the police administration had formed an inquiry committee which summoned the Complainant for a h earing, but that the Complainant failed to appear before the committee, and that the inquiry record is still open. 57. The Respondent State submits that the Complaint does not comply with the requirement under Article 56(2) of the African Charter, since the Complainant was detained in accordance with due process of law, under a national law enacted in compliance with the Constitution and satisfying the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the African Charter; and for specific suspicion and reasons of which he was duly informed. In addition, the State submits that the allegations of maltreatment during detention are unsubstantiated allegations which lack the prima facie evidence required to establish a cause of action under the Charter. 58. The Respondent State further submits that the Communication falls short of the requirements under Article 56(5), firstly, because the Complainant admits that he has done nothing to exhaust the available domestic remedies. The State refers to the jurisprudence of the Commission which held that it is incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust or attempt to exhaust local remedies, and that it is not enough for the Complainant to cast aspersions on the ability of domestic remedies to succeed based on isolated incidents. 12 AN4,vD <c,C. 12 Communication 263/02 - Kenyan Section of International C AR14/" a. 1s u.l ~ ~ ('I ~ ~ 0 { ' u, ,_ ,: ~ ;; I I!! ~ -;, 'V 4•R1c r.11"1~ 41"11:El O~ 12 I P a g e