matter submitted to it by the Complainants, the latter has demonstrated that it has seized the highest Court in the country and could not get appropriate remedy. 113. It is immaterial at this stage to discuss why the Supreme Court refused to hear the Complainants’ case. What the Complainants need to do is to satisfy the African Commission that it approached the Supreme Court with the current grievance and failed to get remedy. This, in the opinion of the Commission, has been aptly demonstrated. 114. Regarding the Supreme Court ruling of 14 March 2005, the African Commission recognises the fact that the parties to the case are the same, that the subject matter is similar to those brought by the Complainants before the same Supreme Court in June 2003 and which the latter ruled on 11 September 2003 against the Complainants. 115. The question before the African Commission at this stage is not to determine whether the Complainant have, subsequent to the submission of the communication to the Commission, had their grievances resolved, but rather whether at the time of submitting the communication, domestic remedies were available, effective and sufficient. 116. The African Commission has held that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment. In ], the Commission held that a remedy is considered available only if the applicant can make use of it in the circumstances of his case. It is deemed effective if it offers a 5 prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 117. The facts as presented before the African Commission indicate that at the time the communication was submitted the Complainants had approached the highest court in the Respondent State – the only domestic remedy available to address the grievance. The Court declined to make a determination on the merits of the case brought by the Complainants requiring the Complainants instead to undertake an action which was the very subject matter of the application. 118. By refusing to make a determination on the merits of the case and by “forcing” the Complainants to perform that which it was challenging before the Court, the Supreme Court effectively demonstrated its inability to address the question put to it by the Complainants and made domestic remedies unavailable and ineffective in the instance of the Complainants’ case and left the latter with no other alternative than to resort to the international forum to seek protection. 119. The availability of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the applicant cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because he is required by the same judiciary to first of all recognise that which he is challenging, local remedies would be deemed to be unavailable to him. In the present communication, that seems to have been the case. 120. The Respondent State, without elaborating, also argues that the Complainants have not complied with Article 56.6 of the African Charter. This sub-article provides that communications referred to under Article 55 of the Charter shall be considered if they…are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted, or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter…”. The communication was received at the Secretariat of the African Commission on 12 November 2003, two months after the Supreme Court refused to hear the matter on the merits. It is the opinion of the Commission that the communication was submitted within a reasonable time. 121. For the above reasons, the African Commission declines to grant the Respondent State’s request for the communication to be declared inadmissible and upholds the Complainants’ arguments that all the conditions under Article 56 have been met and thus declares the communication admissible. Submissions on the merits Complainants’ submissions on the merits 122. The Complainants submit that, the Respondent State’s court, by invoking the dirty hands doctrine and refusing to hear their case, violated their rights guaranteed in Articles 3, 7, 9, 14 and 15 of the African Charter. The Complainants are not asking the Commission to pronounce on the compatibility of the AIPPA to the African Charter.