breakdown of law and order, the perpetrators are arrested and brought before the domestic courts of that country. Therefore, any criminal processes that flow from this action, including undertaking investigations to make the case for the prosecution, are the responsibility of the State concerned and the State cannot abdicate that duty. To expect victims of violations to undertake private prosecutions where the State has not instituted criminal action against perpetrators of crimes, or even follow up with the Attorney General what course of action has been taken by the State, as the Respondent State seems to suggest in this matter, would be tantamount to the State relinquishing its duty to the very citizens it is supposed to protect." 24 91. Similarly, in Monim Elgak, Osman Hurnmeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v. Sudan, the Commission held: "[I]n these circumstances, the Commission has noted that it is not the victim's task to exhaust domestic remedies, but rather the State's obligation to investigate the violations alleged and to prosecute the persons involved on its own initiative and in accordance with international trial standards. 25 92. In the present Communication, as at the date that the complaint was submitted to the Commission in April 2019, the Victim had been informed that the police investigation on the allegations she reported had closed - this information was relayed to the Victim's legal representative by Commissioner Agas. By closing the investigation on the Victim's case, there was no other judicial remedy available to the Victim to take the criminal case further in Namibia. 93. Furthermore, the Commission takes note of the Complainants submissions which indicate that the Victim, who reported to the Police that she was subjected to human trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation, was allegedly accused of providing false information and unlawfully detained in the police station, for a prolonged period of time, with no charges levelled against her. It is further reported that the Victim was interrogated by the Police and threatened with criminal sanctions. The condition provided by the Respondent State for the Victim's release was that she demonstrates she was capable of immediately departing from the country u ,_}m e ease. / . ~ / 94. The Commission also takes note of the Respondent State's c impediments to the finalization of the investigations, referen · in which the African Court held that local remedies we for a case of two years and two months. However, the Co difference with the present Communication - the inst 2 4 Communication 245/02/: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe (2 nia ged tive tim ~ =.,..:,:-; agraph 70 2s Supra note 24, paragraph 62. See also Communication 275/03: Article 19 v. Eritrea, (2007) ACHPR, paragraph 72 18