:CHP:, ACH PR H f1 '\.. African Commission on wnu)) Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility agree that there is such a regime of fear that excuses the Complainants from showing that local remedies have been exhausted. 69. Regarding the Complainants' submission that the local remedies presented by the national courts are physically and financially inaccessible and that the Victims are too indigent to afford a lawyer, the Commission notes that the Respondent State has not presented any response. Since the Complainants concede that the courts are now accessible physically, the Commission's analysis will focus on whether the indigence of the Victims qualifies them to be excused from the requirement to exhaust local remedies. 70. In Purohit and Another v The Gambia.t» the Commission noted that certain categories of persons require legal aid in order to be able to exhaust local remedies. While the Commission holds the view that mere indigence of a victim does not trigger a finding that exceptions to the requirement to exhaust local remedies apply, the Commission is conscious of the fact that the rule is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically.v In line with Article 60 of the African Charter, the Commission recalls the opinion expressed by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights that although indigence on its own does not excuse a person from exhausting local remedies, economic status can prevent a person from enjoying the guarantees in a human rights instrument." The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights went further to opine that "if legal services are required either as a matter of law or fact in order for a right guaranteed ... to be recognized and a person is unable to obtain such services because of his indigency, then that person would be exempted from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies"."? 71. The Commission notes that the Respondent State does not dispute the Complainants' claim that the Victims are indigent people. The Commission further notes the particular legal regime in the Respondent State which prevents foreign organisations to directly or indirectly access the national courts on behalf of the Victims. In the face of indigence and the absence of any form of free legal aid provided by the State Party or any other group, the Commission takes the view that it would amount to undue formalism to require the Victims to exhaust local remedies. Communication 241/2001- Purohit v The Gambia (2003) ACHPR. v Finland (2006) ECtHR (Application no 43160/98) 7. 18 Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (art. 46(1), 46(2) and46(2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of Aug. 10, 1990, InterA: Judgments and Opinions No. 11 (1990) paras 20, 22. 19 As above. 16 17 Lehtinen 14