The Law Admissibility 33. The Complainant submitted its written submissions on the merits. The Respondent State, however, failed to respond to the various notifications addressed to it in the context of this Communication. 34. In the face of the State’s failure to address itself to the complaint filed against it, the African Commission has no option but to proceed with its consideration of the Communication in accordance with its Rules of Procedure. In communications155/1996 Social and Economic Rights Action Center, Center for Economic and Social Rights / Federal Republic of Nigeria, and 159/1996 Union Inter Africaine des Droits de l’Homme, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, Rencontre Africaine des Droits de l’Homme, Organisation Nationale des Droits de l’Homme au Sénégal and Association Malienne des Droits de l'Homme/Republic of Angola, the African Commission decided that it would proceeded to consider communications on the basis of the submission of Complainants and information at its disposal, even if the State fails to submit. 35. In its submission on admissibility, the Complainant alleges that the Angolan government embarked on a campaign termedOperação Brilhante, which was characterised by the systematic process of identifying and rounding up of foreigners working and residing in the diamond-mining regions of Angola, resulting in the detention and deportation of the victims. It avers that tens of thousands of non-nationals were deported from Angola, including Mr Esmaila Connateh and 13 other Gambians on whose behalf the present complaint is filed. Their immediate arrest, and the absence of prior notice being given to them, resulted in the automatic loss of their property. And during the course of the arrests, Angolan authorities confiscated and destroyed the identity documents belonging to the Complainants, including their Gambian passports and visas, residence permits and work permits which explicitly authorised the Gambians to live and work in Angola. Physical property was inevitably abandoned with no possibility for the transfer of such to The Gambia and large amounts of money were extorted from the foreigners by the Angolan authorities. The Complainant alleges that the victims were detained for several weeks, and some for months in a series of detention centres within Angola, under conditions below acceptable minimum human rights standards. Principles of due process of law and respect for international human rights norms were not respected during the process from arrest to their deportation. 36. The Complainant further avers that the deportees were not given any opportunity to contest or challenge the irregularity and illegality of the detention and expulsion by the Angolan government in a court of law. That they did not have access to legal counsel was provided at any stage [sic] before their deportations that no national local remedy was made available to the Gambian nationals at any stage prior to the deportations. It further claims that as a matter of physical impossibility, therefore notes [sic] national remedies are no longer available to the Gambians as they are now no longer in the territory of Angola. 37. The African Commission notes that there are no indications in the submissions of the Complainant that warrant a declaration of inadmissibility of the present communication. In terms of Article 56(5) of the African Charter, however, the African Commission has further examined the assertions of the Complainant on the matter as outlined in the preceding paragraphs. Article 56(5) stipulates that communications shall be considered only if they “are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.” 38. It is a well-established rule of customary international law that before international proceedings are instituted against a State, the various domestic remedies provided by the State should have been approached. This is also known as the exhaustion of local remedies rule, which is a principle under international law permitting States to solve their internal problems in accordance with their own constitutional procedures before accepted international mechanisms can be invoked. 39. This, however, is not a strict requirement that must always be met. In the present communication, the African Commission notes that there were no domestic remedies available to the deportees as they were rounded up, detained and deported in such a manner that they could not gather their