74. With respect to the COHRE Case, the Respondent State advances two main arguments: first, that local remedies have not been exhausted and secondly, that the Communication has been settled by other international mechanisms. 75. The Respondent State argues that the Complainant failed to resort to existing legal, judicial or administrative means within the Respondent State to address the allegations. It argues further that under its law, the protection of human rights is regulated by three main legislative norms: 1. International and regional human rights as ratified by the Respondent State (considered to be an integral part of the Constitution), 2. the Constitution, and 3. State Legislation. 76. It submits that the Constitutional Court was established in 1998 and has jurisdiction to hear cases relating to the protection of human rights, guaranteed in the Constitution and other international instruments ratified. The Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, the General Courts and the Tribunals nd rd of 1st, 2 and 3 Appeals all have jurisdictions, depending on the location, to deal with specific issues. That the President of the Supreme Court can establish specialized courts to deal with specific situations and to hear cases on human rights violations in the three regions of Darfur. 77. The Respondent State argues that it had introduced legal and judicial procedures to punish perpetrators of alleged human rights abuses in Darfur. These mechanisms include: the National Commission of Enquiry on the violation of Human Rights in Darfur under the Chairmanship of the former Vice-President of the Supreme Court, comprised of human rights lawyers and activists. It adds further that the National Commission submitted its report to the President of the Republic in January 2005. Three Committees were established based on the recommendations of the report: namely, the Judiciary Committee of Enquiry to investigate violations, Committee for Compensation and Committee for the Settlement of priority cases of property ownership. 78. Therefore, the Respondent State submits that the communication does not comply with Article 56.5 of the African Charter. 79. The Respondent State submits further that the communication was submitted after being settled by UN mechanisms. It argues that the United Nations and the UN Security Council adopted resolutions 1590, 1591 and 1592 concerning the situation in Darfur, which are currently being implemented. In April 2005 the Commission on Human Rights of the UN Economic, Social and Cultural Council, also adopted a resolution concerning the human rights violations in Sudan. As a result, the Respondent State submits that a Special Rapporteur was assigned to look into the human rights situation. She recently visited Sudan, specifically the Darfur region. 80. The Respondent State argues therefore that, the communication is inadmissible under Article 56.7 of the African Charter. Complainant’s supplementary submission in response to Respondent State’s submission on admissibility 81. In a supplementary brief on admissibility the Complainant submits that, taken together, the forced evictions and accompanying human rights violations amount to serious and massive violations of human rights protected by the African Charter. 82. Complainant cites a 2006 Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan which found that“the human rights situation worsened from July 2005…and a comprehensive strategy responding to transitional justice has yet to be developed in the Sudan.” The report adds that the cases prosecuted before the Special Criminal Court on the events in Darfur “did not reflect the major crimes committed during the height of the Darfur crisis” and “only one of the cases involved charges brought against a high-ranking official, and he was acquitted.” 83. Consequently, the Complainant argues that, the domestic remedies, cited by the Respondent State, are not effective, nor sufficient, since they offer little prospect of success. They are incapable of redressing the complaints.