70. With regards to Article 56 (5) African Charter, it is obvious from the submissions of the Complainants that they have not attempted and do not intend to exhaust local remedies. The relevance of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter is to ensure that international mechanisms are not substitutes for domestic implementation of human rights, but should be seen as tools to assist the domestic authorities to develop a sufficient protection of human rights in their territories. 71. However it is now the rule that the Complainants will not be required to exhaust local remedies in cases where there are legislative or administrative provisions that operate to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts from taking up cases both at first instance and or on appeal. In these circumstances, local remedies will be held as unavailable and non existent. The case of Civil Liberties Organisation V. Nigeria 16 is a leading authority on this point. In this case, the Commission held that,"...since the (military) decrees oust the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate their validity, it is reasonable to presume that domestic remedies will not only be prolonged, but are certain to yield no results."Ibid, Paragraph 9 72. The above view was later upheld mutatis mutandi in the case of Kenule Beeson Saro-Wiwa V. Nigeria18 wherein the Commission, while dispensing with the duty of the authors to exhaust local remedies held suo moto that, "... the ouster clauses render local remedies non-existent, ineffective or illusory".19 In Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum V. Zimbabwe20 a Presidential Clemency Order which prevented the victims of human rights violations from pursuing a cause under the domestic Courts, the Commission held to be an exception to the fulfillment of this requirement. This is so because the Clemency Order constructively and effectively ousted the jurisdictions of the domestic courts from receiving such cases. 73. The submission of the Compb1.t only states that the jurisdiction of the Courts has been ousted to question of expropriation of land. It does not indicate that the jurisdiction of the Courts has been ousted to contest the validity of the Constitutional Amendment. This situation is quite different from that in Civil Liberties Organisation V. Nigeria in which, "... the (military) decrees oust the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate on their validity". 74. In view of the above the Commission declares the Communication Admissible Merits Analysis of the Commission to strike out 75. Rule 108(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that once a Communication has been declared admissible, the Commission shall set a period of sixty (60) days for the Complainant to submit observations on the merits. 76. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one (1) month. 77. To date, the Complainant has not (i) made any submissions on the merits, (ii) responded to several requests from the Commission for submissions, including the last one dated 18 May 2012 (iii) has not requested for an extension of time to submit. 78. Consequently the Commission does not have sufficient evidence upon which to make a determination on the Merits of the Communication. 79. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Commission decides to strike out the Communication for lack of diligent prosecution. 80. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Commission decides to strike out the Communication for lack of diligent prosecution. Done in Banjul, The Gambia, During the 13th Extra-Ordinary Session 6