:CHP: · ' ACH PR African Commission on Human and Peoples· Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 41. Thirdly, the Complainant argued that he could not access these remedies even after his release due to fears that there was a real threat to his life and safety if he sought to pursue domestic remedies while in Sudan. Citing threats of re­ arrest and imprisonment, amongst other factors to buttress this argument, the Complainant further argued that the threats and harassment had forced him to leave the Respondent State, creating a further impediment to his accessing domestic remedies. 42. On the ground that local remedies are not sufficient, the Complainant argued that the legal system in the Respondent State fails to provide effective and sufficient remedies for victims of torture, noting particularly that the definition of torture in the Sudanese Constitution and the Criminal Act of 1991(CPA) does not align with internationally recognised standards nor provide adequate punishment for perpetrators. The Complainant argues further that NISS officials, the perpetrators in this regard, enjoy immunity from criminal and civil procedures in terms of the NSA. The Complainant further alleged that notwithstanding the NISS Director's prerogative to lift immunity, there is no practice indicating that this prerogative has been exercised nor any judicial remedies around the immunity provision. As a result, the Complainant contended there is no realistic prospect of successfully redressing the complaint in the Respondent State. 43. Regarding Article 56(6) of the African Charter, the Complainant submitted that the Communication had been submitted within a reasonable time from when he realized that local remedies were not available, effective, or sufficient. The Complainant noted that the African Charter does not provide for the exact timeframe of a "reasonable period of time" and thereby treats each case individually, explicitly differentiating between cases where remedies could and were exhausted and those cases where they could not and were not exhausted. Arguing that the present Communication falls within the latter category and citing the Commission's decision in Tsikata v Ghana, the Complainant submitted that the Commission estimates the timeliness of a Communication within the latter category from the date where a Complainant becomes aware that local remedies are unavailable, ineffective or insufficient4. Flowing from that premise, the Complainant averred that he realized local remedies were insufficient and ineffective around 05 August 2013 on recei t of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) letter and, months thereafter, filed his Complaint with the Commission. 4 Communication 322/2006, (28 April to 1 2 May 2014) ACHPR, para 37. 9 African Comm, 31 Bijilo Annex Layo orth District, West Coast Region, The Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 OS 04 Email: au-ba njul@africa-union.org https:/achpr au.,nt/0 0 a