critical analysis of the circumstances of the case is helpful to determine whether the Complainants have fulfilled the requirements under Article 56(5). 109.In Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia, 25 the Commission held that, 'in evaluating the rule of exhaustion of local remedies, three major criteria shall be taken into consideration, namely the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. The Commission's approach to such criteria involves three basic enquiries: first, whether the petitioner can pursue the existing local remedies without impediment (the rule of availability of local remedies). If the remedies are found to be available, whether it offers a prospect of success (the effectiveness of/ loca! remedies), and finally whether it is capable of redressing the complairit'{the ,Bufficiency of local remedies). However, if the petitioner cannot pm.:.s he lhe ~existing local remedies without impediment, i.e., if the remedies are not available, the enquiry ends there as it would not be logical to analyse the eff~ctiveness of remedies that are deemed unavaHable to address a complaint 110.In the present Communication, the Victim was allegedly never charged with any offence from,, 7 Ju11e 2005 to 3 M~y 2007. Although never charged, he was held incommunzcado in various ·detentions centres including a number of safe houses .and secret prisons; denie·d access to his family, legal representation, medical treatment, consular assistance, and the possibility to challenge his detention by way • of habeas corpus. Hence, the Complainants claim that the Victim could not pursue the existing local remedies due to his financial inability to travel consecutively to Uganda, his health problems as consequence of the alleged torture suffered, and his fear for his life, safety and security. 111. The Respondent State on the other hand, contests the Complainants arguments and argues that there are sufficient and effective legal and institutional mechanisms (the UHRC, the Constitutional Court and the Ugandan High Court) where the Victim could have pursued and can still pursue his complaint and have his cause heard. The Respondent State further argues that there is no proof that the Victim has made any attempt to exhaust local remedies and the Complainants did not provide evidence proving that the Victim is undergoing physical and financial constraints that prevent him from exhausting local remedies. According to the Respondent State, in as far as safety is concerned, the Victim's safety is guaranteed because Uganda is a party to all relevant international conventions against torture and the Robben Island Guidelines fo e ,"':- , :;..- ·---.....; ::;;-:,, .. ON f;lJ/\.,4,.,, <:,tCRET4-9 # ®~·, ~ 25 Communication 147 /95 -149/96 Sir Dawda K. Jawara vs. The Gambia, para. 1,~.· ',q,. () ' I . ~ @. ~ •1 .i: . <! l in \ , ) ~1; ~ ~·, Au~ 3 '3_ \ , ,~ti!I£. ~ ~;;~ ~~P,j {1 ~.j'? l<tclFlt"cme,1~"<"... .f ti.