body.12 44. The Commission will now analyze the arguments of both Parties to ascertain whether the Respondent State was aware of the allegations made by the Victim and whether it took steps to investigate them. Particularly because allegations of torture against public officials impose an immediate duty on the State to initiate a prompt, impartial and effective investigation and bring the perpetrators to justice if the allegations are founded13 The Commission will also ascertain whether local remedies were indeed available and effective to the Victim and whether the Victim exhausted them. 45. The Complainant asserts that local remedies were not initially available to the Victim due to the civil war in the Sudan, and legislations that impeded his access to the local courts. It states that local remedies were exhausted in 2006 when the matter was taken to the Constitutional Court after it was reestablished. It also outlines various measures taken by the Victim to obtain redress for allegations of torture against the NISS personnel,14 all of which went unheeded. The Complainant avers that the Respondent State does not identify any remedies that offer a prospect of success that would redress the wrong alleged, including carrying out effective investigation into the alleged torture and other violations. 46. The Respondent State on the other hand challenges the fact that local remedies have been exhausted on the grounds that amongst all the remedies provided, there is no mention of any legal action that the Victim or his legal representative took to bring the perpetrators to justice. 47. In Article 19 v Eritrea,15 the Commission ruled that: Whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the State on its own initiative, the State has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases, one cannot demand that the Complainants, or the Victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the State to investigate the facts and bring the accused persons to court in accordance with both domestic and international fair trial standards. 48. The facts in the instant Communication show that the Respondent State was aware of the allegations. This is justified by the numerous Complaints made by the Victim to various authorities. His Complaints went unheeded and while the Respondent State does not rebut the allegation of not instituting an investigation, there is no evidence of measures it took to investigate the allegations even though it had ample notice of the same. This in itself, made any local remedies that theoretically existed, ineffective.16 This view was also expressed by the Commission in Article 19 v Eritrea where eighteen (18) journalists were detained incommunicado for allegedly posing a threat to national security, and were imprisoned for several years. The Commission found that -The State has had ample notice and time within which to remedy the situation...and is expected to have taken appropriate steps to remedy the violations alleged.17 In this light, the Respondent State by failing to take measures to investigate the allegations in spite of being notified has forfeited its prerogative to deal with the matter domestically. 49. The Complainant also states that the Victim's lawyer made a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court in 2006 which dismissed the matter on 6 November 2008, holding that the provisions in the Sudanese law pertaining to statutory limitations and to immunities were not unconstitutional. The Respondent State however contends that the Complainant's resort to the Constitutional Court cannot be considered an act of exhausting all local remedies or a final decision from the highest judicial body. 50. The Commission notes that the Constitutional Court in Sudan is established according to Section 119 (1) of Sudan's Interim National Constitution of 2005. According to Section 122 (1) of the same Constitution, its decisions are final and binding. It is mandated under Section 122(1) (d) amongst other things, to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, under Article 15(1) (d) of the Constitutional Court Act of 2005, the Court has the jurisdiction to declare legislation unconstitutional, and to compel the authorities to take action to protect fundamental rights. In this sense, the Respondent State cannot argue that the Complainant's resort to the Constitutional Court is not an act of exhausting local remedies or a final decision from the highest judicial body. 51. Additionally, citing the Constitutional Court case of Rafaat Makawi v. Sudan,18 the Respondent State submits: - ...This case confirms the existence of an effective judiciary,? which contradicts its argument that approaching the Court - Cannot be considered an act of exhausting local remedies or a final decision from the highest judicial body.? According to the Commission, the Respondent State's submission reaffirms the Complainant's position that the Victim's case to the Constitutional Court was appropriate, even though it did not yield positive results. 52. The Respondent State further argues that remedies are enshrined in the Sudanese legal system which are effective when it comes to accountability and redress, referring to the courts and mechanisms that exist in Sudan.19 It mentions laws such as the 1991 CPA and the National Security Act of 2010. The Respondent 6