could not bring lawsuits against government officials under Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Commission held that this did not provide an effective remedy for the victim. 28 The Commission has held that such immunities restrict the exhaustion of domestic remedies, unless a preliminary investigation was undertaken, noting that by failing to conduct this investigation, any remedies which theoretically existed were rendered redundant, and neither adequate nor effective. 29 The Commission has also held that a state of emergency may render it impossible for the victim to exhaust domestic remedies.30 96. From the submissions of the Parties it is clear that there has been no substantive change in the approach of the law in Sudan in relation to the immunities of police and the NISS since these previous decisions of the Commission. The State attempts to prove the contrary through the provision of information that 300 cases in the preceding two years in which immunities were in fact lilted, however, given the uncontested submissions of the Complainant that the lifting of immunities in law remain at the discretion of the police authorities and that there is no procedure for the courts to review this decision, this renders this remedy discretionary, which cannot guarantee an impartial process and which does not function on the basis of legal principles. Also, since the reported violation had allegedly been committed by the police/NISS, it is improbable to expect that a further report to the authorities, apart from the one already submitted to the prison authorities, would result in any further action on the part of these same state organs who are accused of perpeb·ating the violations. 97. In addition, in his original Complaint the Complainant indicated that under the Emergency Law, the Governor of the State holds the discretionary power to arrest individuals suspected of involvement in crimes relating to the declaration of emergency, and that while arrest pursuant to this power is made provisionally, the law does not set any time limits for the detention or provide for judicial oversight. The State has not refuted this statement. The Commission is thus of the view that even if there had been a possibility for the lifting of the immunities, this would still not have resulted in an adequate remedy, as the applicability of the Emergency law means that there is no legal basis to contest the arbitrary arrest, which is one of the violations complained of. This thus refutes the argument of the State that the judicial system of Sudan is easily effective, since the alleged violations are not protected under the applicable law and thus not enforceable/ remediable by the judicial system. 28 Communication 386/ 10 - Dr. Farouk Mohamed fbrahim (represented by REDRESS) v. SudalL, 18 October 2013, para 60. 29 Communication 368/ 09 - Abdel Hadi, Ali Radi & Others v Republic of Sudan, 4 June 2014, para 48. 30 Communication 386/10 - Dr. Faro11k Mohamed [brahim (r , ~-!;::I:.~ ~ ) v. Suda11, 18 October 2013, para 54. ln this case the victim was unable to approa ree which governed his arrest and detention set out that no reasons for the a ~~~ .....d- ~ they had no right to ts. contact their family or lawyer, nor the ability to challeng u"\ i' u - 22 I Page \ .,, I/ ;y '1 " R1c.i.1l'l~ El Of.$ ~ ~--- '?'<-v