10 52. A remedy will be deemed to be effective if it offers a prospect of success. 11 If its success is not sufficiently certain, it will not meet the requirements of availability and effectiveness. The word 'effective' has been defined to mean "adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result," or "functioning, useful, serviceable, operative, in order; practical, current, actual, real, valid".12 Lastly, a remedy will be found to be sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.13 It will be deemed insufficient if, for example, the applicant cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because of a generalised fear for his life "or even those of his relatives."14 This Commission has also declared a remedy to be insufficient because its pursuit depended on extrajudicial considerations, such as discretion or some extraordinary power vested in an executive state official. The word 'sufficient' literally means "adequate for the purpose; enough"; or "ample, abundant; . . . satisfactory."15 53. In the present communication, the author of the communication is based in Canada, alleging human rights violations in the Respondent State following an incident that occurred in the country. The Complainant does not hide the fact that local remedies were not attempted but argued that pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent State would be futile "due to the lack of an independent and impartial judiciary, a lack of an efficient remedy, the significant likelihood of an unduly prolonged domestic remedy, and most importantly, the potential for violence against the Anuak or those supporting them within the legal system". The Complainant argued that the violations that took place in Gambella were massive and serious and involved many people; it noted that "the government forces and its collaborators, having previously drawn a list of targets, went from door to door, slaughtering any educated Anuak men they could find, women and children were raped, and homes and schools were burnt to the ground...". 54. The Complainant noted further that the judiciary in the Respondent State is not independent due to interference at State level where there are reports of administrative officers interfering with court decisions, firing of judges, dictating decisions to judges, reducing salaries of judges and deliberately refusing to enforce certain decisions of the courts; and that bringing the case before Ethiopian courts would be unduly prolonging the process as the Ethiopian judiciary suffers from "a complex system of multiple courts that lack coordination and resources", including "dismal conditions of service, staff shortages, lack of adequate training, debilitating infrastructure and logistical problems". The Complainant claims court proceedings "take years to yield results", and concluded that the Respondent State's judicial system is "so under resourced that prosecutions would be nearly impossible". 55. The Complainant also alleges that the Anuak fear for their safety in bringing the case in Ethiopia adding that there are no Anuak trained as lawyers who could bring the case before Ethiopian courts. The Complainant concluded by stating that to bring the case within the Respondent State would only further endanger the lives of the remaining Anuak in the Ethiopia. The Complainant added that the Respondent State had been given notice and adequate time to remedy the human rights violations against the Anuak but has utterly failed to do so. 56. Can this Commission conclude, based on the above allegations by the complainant that local remedies in the Respondent State are not available, ineffective or insufficient? 57. It must be observed here that the Complainant's submissions seem to suggest that local remedies may in fact be available but it is apprehensive about their effectiveness as far as the present case is concerned. From the Complainant's submissions, it is clear that the Complainant has relied on reports, including a World Bank report which concluded that "of the three branches of government, the judiciary has the least history and experience of independence and therefore requires significant strengthening to obtain true independence". 58. The Complainant's submissions also demonstrate that it is apprehensive about the success of local remedies either because of fear for the safety of lawyers, the lack of independence of the judiciary or the meagre resources available to the judiciary. Apart from casting aspersions on the effectiveness of local remedies, the Complainant has not provided concrete evidence or demonstrated sufficiently that these apprehensions are founded and may constituted [sic] a barrier to it attempting local remedies. In the view of this Commission, the Complainant is simply casting doubts about the effectiveness of the domestic remedies. This Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on every complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of, local remedies. It is not enough for the complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated or past incidences. In this regard, the African Commission would like to refer to the decision of the [UN] Human Rights Committee in A v. Australia16 in which the Committee held that "mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies ... did not absolve the author from pursuing such remedies".17 The African Commission can therefore not 7