43. In view of the foregoing, the African Commission notes that since the State did not raise objections on the other requirements under Article 56, it is presumed that they have been complied with by the Complainant. The Commission will therefore pronounce on the two requirements in dispute that is Article 56.2 incompatibility with the Charter, and Article 56.5exhaustion of local remedies. 44. Compatibility, according to the Black’s Law Dictionary means ‘in compliance’ or ‘in conformity with’ or ‘not contrary to’ or against’. The African Commission has interpreted compatibility under Article 56.2 of the Charter to mean the communication must reveal a prima facie violation of the Charter. In the present communication, the Complainant alleges that the Cote d’lvoire Constitution of 2000 includes provisions which are discriminatory and do not provide citizens of the country equal opportunity to fully participate in the governance of their country. The Complainant claims that in terms of Article 35 of the Constitution “The President of the Republic … should be of Ivorian origin, born of a Father and Mother of Ivorian origin …”, Article 65 of the Constitution stipulates that a Candidate to the Presidential elections or to the of Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly “should be or Ivorian origin, with both parents being of Ivorian origin, should never have renounced Ivorian nationality, and should never have acquired another nationality” and Article 132 according to the Complainant accorded civil and criminal immunity to the members of the former National Committee for Public Security (CNSP), an executive military body which had directed the transition, and to the perpetrators of the events which brought about the change of Government following the Coup d’Etat of th 24 December 1999. These allegations in the opinion of the Commission do raise aprima facie violation of human rights. Based on this, the African Commission holds that the requirement of Article 56.2 of the African Charter has been sufficiently complied with. 45. Secondly, the Respondent State contends that the Complainant has not attempted any domestic remedies. The Complainant has slated clearly that the remedy available to secure a revision of the Constitution can be used only by the President and the members of parliament. It is not available to any other individual or citizen. The Respondent State did not dispute this fact but instead indicated, without elaborating, that the Complainant has not submitted any evidence on the use and exhaustion of existing local remedies, adding that “local remedies” include any legal and lawful action undertaken to “ensure the cessation of the alleged violations”. 46. In Sir Dawda K. Jawara/The Gambia, the African Commission made it clear that a local remedy is available if the Complainant is able to pursue it without any hindrance; the remedy is effective if it offers the Complainant the possibility of success and if this remedy is adequate and capable of 3 providing reparation for the alleged violation. 47. Where the Complainant demonstrates to have exhausted all remedies, the burden shifts to the Respondent State which has to show the remedies available and the extent to which the Complainant could use them to remedy his/her claim. Making a general statement on the availability of local remedies without substantiating is not sufficient. This view is supported by theHuman Rights 4 Committee on Albert Mukong v Republic of Cameroon , where the Committee stated that the State party had merely listed in abstracto the existence of several remedies without relating them to the circumstances of the case, and without showing how they might provide effective redress in the circumstances of the Complainant’s case. 5 48. In the Velasquez case , the lnter-American Court on Human Rights, in interpreting Article 46 of the Inter-American Human Rights Convention (similar to Article 56 of the African Charter) on the matter of exhaustion of local remedies, declared that for the necessary condition of the exhaustion of local remedies to apply, the local remedies of the State concerned should be available, adequate and effective so that they can be used and exhausted. 49. In the present case, the Complainant does not have the possibility of resorting to any judicial means to remedy the alleged violation as the mechanism provided for by Article 124 of the Constitution is not available to him. In effect the Complainant does not have the necessary capacity to initiate the local remedy because this is reserved exclusively for the President of the Republic and for the members of the National Assembly. It can therefore be concluded that the remedy offered by Article 124 of the Constitution is neither adequate nor available to the Complainant. 50. The Respondent State is under obligation to provide all possible, effective and accessible remedies for its citizens by which means the latter can seek, at the national level, recognition and