nd th 22 October 1991. At the 13 Session held in March 1993, the communication was declared admissible and its procedure combined with that of communication 48/90. Communication 89/93 was th th received on 27 August 1992. The Commission was seized of it at the 13 Ordinary Session in March 1993, and its procedure was combined with that of the three preceding communications. 25. The parties were regularly notified of all the submissions and had the opportunity to present their conclusions and material evidence at all stages of the procedure. 26. The Commission deployed a mission to Sudan, comprising three Commissioners (E.V.O. th Dankwa, Robert H. Kisanga and Mohamed Kamel Rezag-Bara) from 1st – 7 December 1996. The mission was able to verify on the ground, elements of the four communications under consideration. The mission report was presented to the Commission, which adopted it and decided to publish it. th 27. The Commission ruled on the merits of the four communications at its 26 Ordinary Session. Law Admissibility 28. Admissibility of communications under the African Charter is governed by Article 56, which sets out conditions that all communications must meet before they can be decided upon. These criteria must be applied bearing in mind the character of each communication. The case at hand is a combination of four different communications, which the Commission decided to consider together, in accordance with its jurisprudence. (Cf. communications 16/88, 17/88, 18/88, 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93) (Free) Legal Assistance Group/Zaire and 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93 Organisation mondiale contre la torture and Association internationale des juristes démocrates, Commission internationale des juristes (C.I.J), Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme/Rwanda). This decision was based on the similarity of the allegations presented, on the one hand, and the human rights situation prevailing in Sudan during the period covered by these allegations of violations, on the other. The communications were submitted by NGOs and allege many overlapping and inter-related details. 29. Article 56.5 of the African Charter requires, as a condition for admissibility, that communications must be: submitted after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. 30. In applying this provision, the Commission has elaborated through its jurisprudence, criteria on which to base its conviction as to the exhaustion of internal remedies, if any. The Commission has drawn a distinction between cases in which the complaint deals with violations against victims identified or named and those cases of serious and massive violations in which it may be impossible for the Complainants to identify all the victims. 31. In a case of violations against identified victims, the Commission demands the exhaustion of all internal remedies, if any, if they are of a judicial nature, are effective, and are not subordinated to the discretionary power of public authorities. The Commission is of the view that this provision must be applied concomitantly with Article 7, which establishes and protects the right to fair trial. 32. The Commission has stated that one of the justifications for this requirement is that a government should be aware of a human rights violation in order to have the chance to remedy such violation, thus protecting its reputation which would inevitably be tarnished by being called to plead its case before an international body. This condition also precludes the African Commission from becoming a tribunal of first instance, a function that it cannot, either as a legal or practical matter, fulfil (See ACHPR/25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93: 53-54) 33. In the cases under consideration, the Government of Sudan has not been unaware of the serious human rights situation existing in that country. For nearly a decade the domestic situation has focused national and international attention on Sudan. Many of the alleged violations are directly connected to the new national laws in force in the country in the period covered by these communications. Even where no legal action has been brought by the alleged victims at the domestic level, the government has been sufficiently aware to the extent that it can be presumed to know the situation prevailing within its own territory as well as the content of its international obligations.