30. The concern raised in the present communication is that in The Gambia, there are no review or appeal procedures against determination or certification of one’s mental state for both involuntary and voluntary mental patients. Thus the legislation does not allow for the correction of an error assuming a wrong certification or wrong diagnosis has been made, which presents a problem in this particular case where examination of the said mental patients is done by general practitioners and not psychiatrists. So if an error is made and there is no avenue to appeal or review the medical practitioners’ assessment, there is a great likelihood that a person could be wrongfully detained in a mental institution. 31. Furthermore, the [LDA] does not lay out fixed periods of detention for those persons found to be of unsound mind, which, coupled with the absence of review or appeal procedures could lead into a situation where a mental patient is detained indefinitely. 32. The issue before the African Commission is whether or not there are domestic remedies available to the Complainants in this instance. 33. The Respondent State indicates that there are plans to amend the [LDA], which, in other words is an admission on part of the Respondent State that the Act is imperfect and would therefore not produce real substantive justice to the mental patients that would be detained. 34. The Respondent State further submits that even though the Act itself does not provide review or appeal procedures, there are legal procedures or provisions in terms of the Constitution that the Complainants could have used and thus sought remedies in court. However, the Respondent State has informed the African Commission that no legal assistance or aid is availed to vulnerable groups to enable them access the legal procedures in the country. Only persons charged with capital offences get legal assistance in accordance with the Poor Persons Defence (Capital Charge) Act. 35. In the present matter, the African Commission cannot help but look at the nature of people that would be detained as voluntary or involuntary patients under the [LDA] and ask itself whether or not these patients can access the legal procedures available (as stated by the Respondent State) without legal aid. 36. The African Commission believes that in this particular case, the general provisions in law that would permit anybody injured by another person’s action are available to the wealthy and those that can afford the services of private counsel. However, it cannot be said that domestic remedies are absent as a general statement; the avenues for redress are there if you can afford it. 37. But the real question before this Commission is whether looking at this particular category of persons the existent remedies are realistic. The category of people being represented in the present communication are likely to be people picked up from the streets or people from poor backgrounds and as such it cannot be said that the remedies available in terms of the [Gambian] Constitution are realistic remedies for them in the absence of legal aid services. 38. If the African Commission were to literally interpret Article 56(5) of the African Charter, it might be more inclined to hold the communication inadmissible. However, the view is that, even as admitted by the Respondent State, the remedies in this particular instance are not realistic for this category of people and therefore not effective and for these reasons the African Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits st 39. The present communication was declared admissible at the African Commission’s 31 Ordinary Session in May 2002. The Respondent State has since been requested numerous times to forward th rd their submissions on the merits but to no avail. On 29 April 2003, two weeks prior to the 33 Ordinary Session, the Respondent State finally forwarded their written submissions to the Secretariat of the African Commission. 40. In coming to its decision, the African Commission will refer to the more recent written submissions on the merits as presented by the Respondent State as well the Respondent State’s submissions on admissibility in particular where they address issues relating to the merits of this communication.