and certain parts of the CSO Proclamation was not relevant at domestic level when that is precisely the nature of the claim now pleaded before the Commission. The Complainants are content to have the complaint examined under the lenses of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Charter as a proper means of redressing the grievance. Inexplicably, they deemed a similar procedure irrelevant at domestic level. Subject to certain factors to be considered below, the Complainants’ inexplicable estimation that a constitutional review was not relevant cannot in and of itself absolve the Complainants from the duty to utilise that procedure. Similarly, the fact that domestic Courts did not refer the constitutionality of the relevant parts of the CSO Proclamation to the CCI, when they could have done so sua sponte, cannot be pleaded in support of the case that such a referral was irrelevant. It must be recalled that the duty to exhaust local remedies where they are available lies on the Complainant and whether this duty has been satisfied is determined by reference to the steps taken by the Complainant at domestic level.19 58. By pleading the complaint without invoking any fundamental rights in the domestic proceedings, the Complainant denied the Respondent State the very opportunity Article 56(5) is designed to afford a State to deal with alleged violations using its domestic mechanisms. Accordingly, the Commission is not persuaded by the argument that a constitutional review was not necessary on the facts of this case. 59. Regarding the argument that the CCI and the House of Federation are not judicial organs for purposes of exhaustion of local remedies, indeed Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana is authority for the proposition that “… the internal remedy to which Article 56(5) refers entails remedy sought from courts of a judicial nature.”20 This position has been unquestionably restated and applied in subsequent cases including: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum / Zimbabwe21; Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon22; and Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by REDRESS) v. Sudan23; Article 19 v Eritrea.24 Communication 260/02 0 Bakweri Land Claims Commission v Cameroun (2004) ACHPR para. 55; Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium (1980) ECHR (App. No. 7654/76) para. 39 20 Above, n 9 21 Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (2006) ACHPR para. 45 (procedure before the Ombudsman rejected as a remedy) 22 Communication 260/02 - Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon (2004) ACHPR para. 56 (no attempt to seize the courts) 23 Communication 386/10 - Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by REDRESS) v. Sudan(2013) ACHPR para. 56 (the Civic Judiciary System; Complaints within the National Security Services; The 19 16 | P a g e