118.At this juncture, the Commission would also like to allude to the Complainants argument that the Victim's release in May 2007 was widely reported in the media, and the Annual Report of the UHRC of 2006 also referred to the Victim's detention without charge in 2006. Therefore, the Respondent State was aware of the matter since May 2007, if not earlier, and yet no investigations were carried out, before the Complaint was filed before the Commission in May 2009, almost two years after the Victim's release. TI1e Complainants therefore contend the Respondent State's argument that the UHRC by its mandate can suo moto initiate investigations yet fails to adduce any evidence that such an investigation has been initiated in the Victim's case. 119.The Commission has held in Article 19 v. Eritre(J, that whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by ·the State on its own initiative, the State has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion, furthermore, where the State has_, had ample notice of the violations, it ,should take steps to remedy / them. 30 The Commission is therefore of the view that the Respondent State did have ample notice of the Victims case from 2006 and as such s.h ould have initiated investigations ·on the allegations made by the Victim in line with Article 52(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, whic,h it did not do. 120.For the aforementioned reasons, it is the view of the Commission that local remedies .though theoretically available, are not effective and/ or sufficient. Therefore, the requirement to exhaust local remedies must be dispensed with in the present Communication and thus holds that the Complainants have complied with the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. · 121.For these reasons, the •Commission declares this Admissible. °Communication 275/03 - Article 19 v. Eritrea. Para, 72,78, 3 26