was found that in the absence of a judicial body to adjudicate on the Applicant‟s complaint, there was no effective remedy available. 69. The Complainants further argue that the President‟s decision under the Emergency Law can not be made subject to any appeal. Therefore, they submit that the victims are left without any judicial right to appeal the decision of the State of Emergency Court. The Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 70. The Respondent State submits that the Communication is Inadmissible for two reasons: firstly, it was lodged before exhausting local means of redress as the sentence was not final; and secondly, the content of the Communication is inaccurate. 71. In terms of the second grounds the Respondent State submits that certain facts of the Communication are false. It argues that the victims were given due process before and during the trial and that they had access to lawyers during interrogations. 72. The Respondent State submits that the victims had access to a forensic doctor and were examined. They further State that copies of court proceedings were made available to the victims and their lawyers and they were properly remanded by a court prior to the commencement of interrogations commenced. 73. The Respondent State asserts that trial of the victims was fair and was conducted in public. 74. On the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State submits in its written statement that the judgement pronounced on 30 November 2006 by an Emergency Court is not final as it has not yet been endorsed. 17