21. On 5 November 2012, the Complainants submissions were received at the Secretariat and transmitted to the Respondent State on 6 November 2012 and the latter was requested to submit its observations on the Merits. 22. The Communication was deferred during the 53rd Ordinary Session due to the failure of the Respondent State to submit its observations on the Merits and correspondence was sent to the latter on 15 May 2013 informing it that the Commission would proceed to examine the Communication on the basis of the information before it if the observations were not received. The Law on Admissibility The Complainants' Submissions on Admissibility 23. The Complainants submit that with the exception of the requirement under Article 56 (5) of the African Charter which they request the Commission to dispense with, all other conditions necessary for a Communication to be declared admissible under the African Charter have been complied with. 24. According to the Complainants, the representatives of the Victims filed a criminal complaint against several individually named police officers with the Directorate of the Police on 18 September 2006 concerning the torture in the case of the Soba Aradi camp in the period of 24 May 2005 to June/July 2006. In spite of repeated written requests and telephone inquiries, no investigation had been commenced as of October 2008, more than two years after the complaint had been lodged and more than three years after the violations had taken place. 25. They submit that the Criminal Procedure Code, or any other legislation for that matter, does not stipulate a duty to commence an investigation following a complaint of torture and any criminal suit against police officers is subject to the lifting of immunity that police officers in Sudan generally enjoy. There is neither an explicit right nor an established procedure or precedent of using mandamus or other remedies to compel the police to commence an investigation. 26. In that regard, the Complainants cite the Commission's decision in Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, wherein the Commission held that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint." 1 27. The Complainants further submit that the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the right to bring a private prosecution2 . However, such prosecution can only proceed with the approval of the head of the police forces who will need to lift the immunity of the individual officer(s) concerned. It is also subject to the approval of the Attorney General3 . They conclude that there is no prospect of any immunity being lifted where the police have not even commenced the initial investigation as in the present case. 28. The Complainants state that individual officers are immune from civil suits unless their immunity is lifted, which has not been the case more than two years after the complaints were filed4 Where the permission to sue a member of the police forces is refused or not granted, the person alleging a violation cannot take separate legal action against the state because the liability is vicarious on the grounds of employers' liability 5 and therefore not independent of the liability of the responsible perpetrator(s). 29. They argue that in any case, the prospect of bringing a civil claim is not an effective remedy where the applicants are seeking an investigation into serious violations such as torture6 . A civil claim does not deal with establishing facts by means of an effective and impartial investigation and cannot result in a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence against the individual officer concerned to prosecute and to punish where so warranted. 30. In addition, the Complainants argue that the collective nature of arrests, detention and subsequent ill-treatment and torture, which concerned a total of 684 persons, 88 of whom are represented in the present application, absolve the authors from exhausting local remedies on the grounds that the nature of violations make it impossible to effectively pursue any remedies that may exist. 31. The Complainants further argue that the Respondent State has not taken any steps even though it had ample notice that gave it the opportunity to remedy the violations. The Commission has repeatedly held in its jurisprudence that the exhaustion requirement does not apply in such situation7 . In other words, the state effectively forfeits its prerogative to deal with a case domestically where its conduct clearly demonstrates that it is not willing to seriously respond to the violation(s). This applies equally to the present case as the State authorities have been aware of the violations complained of since the judgment of the Al-Azahri General Criminal Court on 9 March 2006 and in the course of June and July 2006 and of 3