implementation of international human rights obligations of States parties is designed to enhance the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms at their national levels, and is supplemented by the fact that "local remedies are normally quicker, cheaper, and more effective than international ones".25 78. The rationale behind the exhaustion of local remedies is that States should be given an opportunity to address the issue before the matter is brought before international treaty bodies. The Commission has confirmed and reconfirmed this position in several decisions. 79. In Interights, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, and Association mauritanienne des droits de I'Homme v Mauritanis'", the Commission stated that local remedies are "the ordinary remedies of common Law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessibLe to people seeking justice". In Cudjoe v Ghana-", the Commis~i()r stated that local remedies applied to "courts of a judicial nature". In Free Legal AssistanceiqroQP and Others v Zaire28 and Recontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de I'Homme' vZambia29 the Commission stated that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is founded on the principle that a government should have notice of human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violations before being called before an international body. 80. Accordingly, the submissions by the Complainant in this case would be assessed in light of the above in respect of provisions of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 81. The Complainant submits, and the .Commission agrees, that in Jawara v Cambia-", the Commission recognized a certain level of flexibility to application of the rule, and held that complainants are expected to exhaust local remedies only in so far as these remedies are available, effective and sufficient. The Commission further expounded on this by stating that" a remedy is considered available if the.petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of the redressing the complaintn", 82. The Commission notes the reasons advanced by the Complainant, in view of the above, as to why he believes.domestic or local remedies are unavailable and ineffective namely: I:·:;X··-::·: (i) that judicial "remedies cannot be accessed freely without coming into contact with artificial impediments, hinderances and hurdles placed on the complainant's way and which barriers are properly utilized by agents of the Respondent State deliberately as impeding tools and roadblock to the Complainant to delay access to justice, to the detriment of the Complainant and his clientele; 25 n 4 above on page 7, 26 Communication 242/01 - Interights, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, and Association mauritanienne des droits de I'Homme v Mauritania, para 27 27 Communication 221198 - Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana, para 14 ~ /. '" ~'" 28 Communicat~on 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, ~00:93 - Free Legal Assistance, Group, and Others v Zaire (1995) j~J 3~ \ l.¢~o·~ 29 Communication 7.1/92 - Recontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de I Homme v Zambia (1997) .. " 1~~ ~ ~",' 30 Communication 147/95-149/96 - Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The) v, ", 31 See 27 above, para 32. ~ ~ '" "', 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR ~ .. 14 ~ :. ' 1( u Q '<" J'I ~'" 0 Ii. t.,. ""~ ~~~, ~U'I.JII. <:> ..., <c, c ~ 0", .o\~'RJ(."'\~~~..::f" .~~ V I