of the EFCC, and suddenly died incumbent that despite being in a few on the hours after Nigerian perfect health prior to his arrest, he he was detained. They submit that it was authorities to carry out a swift and thorough investigation into the circumstances that led to the Victim's death, and that they have failed to comply with this obligation. 31. The Complainants state that members of the Victim's family have pointed out to the authorities that the circumstances of his death have to be investigated, but his cause of death has not been established to date, the person responsible for his death had not been identified and no light has been shed on the events leading to his passing. 32. The Complainants reiterate the facts as captured in paragraphs 9 to 12 above, adding that no autopsy had been carried out to the date of submission of the admissibility submissions that the Victim's body remains in the morgue and his family is unable to give him a proper burial and obtain closure. The Complainants submit that the Victim's family cannot be expected to take any further legal step in order to exhaust domestic legal remedies, as it is incumbent on the State custody. to carry The underscores out an Complainants effective investigation if a person dies refer to the large body of case law in State which this obligation on states,2 submitting that the Respondent State cannot dodge this obligation by referring the Complainants to take further legal steps on their own. The Complainants also submit that the procedure of domestic legal remedies is unduly prolonged. 33. The Complainants aver that the Complaint was submitted w i t h i n a reasonable time frame, in that they waited several months to give the Nigerian authorities time to investigate the matter. In addition, they s u b m i t that they also went to the Attorney General and the Senate of Nigeria. However, they submit that when it became clear that the authorities are not going to shed light on the circumstances leading to the Victim's death, they submitted the complaint to the African Commission. The Complainants submit that they neither submitted their complaint prematurely nor did they hesitate too long before submitting the complaint. In conclusion, the Complainants state that the case has not been settled. The Respondent State's S u b m i s s i o n s on Admissibility 34. Despite the fact that the Commission requested the Respondent State to submit its arguments and evidence on a d m i s s i b i l i t y in accordance with Rule 105 (2), as well as granting an extension in this regard, no response has been received. In such cases the Commission has held that in the absence of a response from the 2 European Court of Hu ma n Rights in Fnnziyevn v Russia; Sl111111kavn v. Russia; Sli111a11i v. France; Mu rndynn