produced its final report on 25th April 2012. In its report, the Vetting Board found eleven (11) judges and fourteen (14) magistrates to be unsuitable for judicial office, which led to their removal from the judiciary. 97. The Supreme Court has described the nature of the Vetting Board as a sui generis quasijudicial body, and further stated that the Vetting Board "can conduct an investigation, and can act as an adjudicator" but "does not act as a Court of laui". As indicated by the Complainant, the Supreme Court did indeed confirm the finality of the Vetting Board' s conclusions by affirming that "a removal, or a process leading to the removal, of a judge, from office by virtue of the operation of legislation ... shall not be subject to question in, or review by, any court". ili~ 98. The Commission is however of the view that although decisio~'';6f the Supreme Court may preclude the eleven (11) judges and fourteen (14) magistrates who were found unsuitable for office from appealing the Vetting Board's decision,' that decision does not affect the outcome of Mr. Ngoge's domestic cases, As e~!!i~r indic;ited, during the vetting process, Mr. Ngoge allegedly submitted complaints to tK~::VettingB0atd citing corruption amongst judges of the Court of Appeal. The Vetting Board acknowledged the complaints but noted that it "will contact the LSK [Law Society of Kenya] in this respect [and that}, .Lt is not in a position to make afinding against the judge in respect of these complaints", 99. The Commission reasons that the findings of the Vetting Board, which were limited to the suitability or unsuitability of certain judges to serve in office, do not prevent Mr. Ngoge from pursuing local remedies, including appealing any. final decisions in which he has grievances. Mr. Ngoge's domestic cases, which .form the basis for the present Communication, are therefore entirely separate and' distinct from the decision of the Vetting Board, at least in so far as exhaustion of domestic or local remedies are concerned. 100. For the above-mentioned reasons, in the present case, the Commission adjudges that the issue before it has not been finalized by the domestic courts of the Respondent State, and therefore finds that this Communication does not comply with Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 101. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that a Communication must be submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized of the matter'. I ••• 102. As discussed in the immediate paragraphs above, the Commission has determined that the Complainant failed to exhaust local remedies. In circumstances where local remedies have not been exhausted, complainants may nonetheless submit to the Commission complaints within a reasonable time from when they realize that local remedies are unavailable or ineffective. In this particular case however, the Commission has already held that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate the unavailability or ineffectiven - Q " QC .J" 1116 remedies o~ 'f 1\ I., . 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR ,.~~ %" ,0,(' -, o~;: ~((t.:/ " 'i~~u-\.'" / \"'" ,~ '" 1 '3-" f<...'? .) c- "c Wn.. -ry ..q"'RIC"'\~(. .:::,Q~ ~o"'MEEl ('t(S~x .