by the UHRC, the Communication does not meet the requirement for the exhaustion of local remedies, stated in Article 56(5) of the Charter. 58. The Commission observes that through the local remedies rule, States are given the possibility of redressing the alleged wrong within their own domestic legal systems before their responsibility is brought to the international level.5 Additionally, it is a generally accepted principle in international law that before an international body is approached all available legal domestic remedies must be exhausted by the applicant. As stated in the Commission’s Information sheet No. 3, “he or she must have taken the case to the highest court of the land.”6 59. The Commission notes that in the present case, the Victims filed a petition in the Court of Appeal, sitting as the Constitution Court; that is Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2006. In its ruling, the Court held that the continuation of the High Court trial while the 14 bailed petitioners were in unlawful custody contravened the Constitution, and their continued detention in contravention of the Constitutional Court’s declaration was unlawful. As redress, the Court held that “[T]he 14 bailed petitioners are to be released forthwith, under the terms of their bail granted by the High Court, unless they are being held on some other lawful ground.”7 60. The Commission notes that in the present communication, the Victims obtained the remedies they sought from the Court of Appeal, which was sitting as the Constitutional Court, therefore they did not appeal to the Supreme Court for redress. The Commission further notes that while the Supreme Court is the highest appellate Court in Uganda, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to appeals on decisions of the Court of Appeal where “the party is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal.”8 As such, the Victims fulfilled the requirement by exhausting the legal domestic remedies available to them, irrespective of the fact that they did not take their case to the highest court of the land. 61. Regarding the Respondent State’s assertion that the Victims did not exhaust all available local remedies because they did not seek to have their case addressed by the UHRC, the Commission notes from its jurisprudence that it has previously held that human rights commissions do not fall under the category of judicial remedies which should be sought by the Victims. This can be seen in Alfred Cudjoe v. Ghana, and reaffirmed in Kenneth Good v. Botswana, where the Commission held that: “the internal remedy to which Article 56(5) refers entails remedy sought from courts of a judicial nature, which the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission is clearly not. From the African Commission’s point of view, seizing the said Commission can [be] taken as preliminary amicable Silvia D’Ascoli & Katherine Maria Scherr, The Rule of Prior Exhaustion of Local Remedies in the International Law Doctrine and its Application in the Specific Context of Human Rights Protection, (2007) 15 6 The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Information Sheet No. 3 7 Col (Rtd.) Kizza Besigye and 22 Others vs. The Attorney General - Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2006 – 12 January 2007, p.31 8 Article 132(1) and (2), Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995) 5 10