body of last resort. Three major criteria could be deduced from the practice of the Commission in determining this rule, namely: the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient.8 88. The only issue at stake at this stage of admissibility in the present case is the one of the exhaustion of local remedies. 89. It appears from the oral submissions of the Respondent State that there is no local remedy left for the complainants to exhaust. They argued that the decision of the State of Emergency Court has been examined and confirmed by a legal adviser and the final procedure of endorsement (ratification by the President) of the decision of the State of Emergency Court what is a waiting. The outcome of these two procedures did not change the decision of the State of Emergency Court. 90. The fact that the endorsement of the Emergency Special Court in Egypt is of legal nature or not is not relevant for the examination of the communication by the Commission at this stage, because what is at stake is whether there are other remedies available that the applicants did not resort to. The clarifications brought before the Commission by the representatives of the Respondent State during the 41st Ordinary Session led to the conclusion that there were no other local remedies available for the Complainant to resort to. The endorsement process was completed and it was submitted by both parties that the Complainants had already used the appeal that was available to them by bringing their grievance to the “judgement ratification office” and that this remedy was unsuccessful. 91. Most of the submissions made by the Respondent State and examined during the 41st Ordinary Session of the Commission refer to the notion of due process during the trial and would be examined at the Merits‟ stage. The 8 See Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara vs The Gambia 21