Complainant proceeds to set out the ways in which he alleges his rights under Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 16 had been violated, including through indefinite detention without being heard by a judicial authority, beatings sustained during his interrogation, the conditions of his detention, among others, submitting that this makes a prima facie case for violation of his rights in that they are specific enough and the Commission already found in its seizure decision that there had been prima facie violation. He thus submits that he meets the requirements under Article 56(2). 43. The Complainant submits that he meets the requirements under Article 56(3) in that the language used is respectful and balanced. 44. The Complainant further submits that the Communication is based on the Complainant's own experience, and is thus not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media, noting that the facts presented in the Complaint were transmitted to the legal representatives through Skype and telephone correspondence, thereby meeting the requirement of Article 56(4). 45. On the question of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) the Complainant submits that he does not have to exhaust this requirement, since there are no available, effective and sufficient remedies in this case, making reference to the Commission's jurisprudence in Amneshj International and Others v Sudan;2 Monim Elgak, Osmnn Hummeida and Amir Suleman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v. Sudan 3 amongst other decisions, as well as decisions of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. 4 The Complainant submits that 1) there is no effective remedy available for arbitrary arrest and detention; 2) there is no effective and sufficient remedy to challenge the human rights abuses of the NISS and 3) that the Respondent State has failed to provide a remedy or investigate the allegations despite ample notice and time to do so. 46. In relation to the first argument, the Complainant submits that the Commission has held in its jurisprudence that the normal remedy for arbitrary arrest and detention is a writ of habens corpus, so that a court may order the State authorities to produce and incLividual and justify his imprisonment.5 The Complainant states that on this ground the Commission has found that where a remedy of habeas corpus does not exist at local level, there are no available remedies for the victims of arbitrary arrest and detention to resort to.6 2 Communication 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93. 3 Communication 379/09, para 58. Tal!ga11yika Law Society andJJ;iJ~ iRtr.~!J Tanzania (2013) para 82; Application 004/2013, Lohi Issa Konat ' ~(:t~fR?,i 5 Communication 153/96 - Constitutional Rights Project v Ni m'?'pfrf~.- - - ' ~ 6 As above, para 10. cf .. 4 Application 009/2011 & 011/2011, '!an Rights Centre v. aras 96 & 108. c., 9I Page