c� f-'-) 6�!:tEB j>.CHP� Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights 57. Regarding the first argument, pertaining to prompt and effective investigation, the primary concern in the instant case is whether representations made by UK officials to political organs of the Respondent State on behalf of the Complainant and allegations laid by the Complainant to police officers while in detention are sufficient for satisfying Article 56(5) of the African Charter considering that they are not judicial proceedings. In Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida, and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan, the Sudanese Government argued likewise, namely that representations made outside the legal or judicial process do not constitute legal proceedings required for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter7. Citing, in particular, Article 34(2) of the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Act of 1991 (CPA) provides that persons can approach the Prosecution Attorney to initiate criminal cases. 58. The Commission recalls that the rationale for the exhaustion of local judicial remedies is to ensure that prior to initiating proceedings before an international body, the State concerned must have the opportunity to remedy the matter through its own domestic system8• However, this requirement is not absolute and contains exceptions to ensure that Complainants will not be hindered from submitting Complaints to the Commission due to procedural impediments arising from unjust laws or practices. 59. Accordingly, the Commission's jurisprudence has on several occasions recognised that a State may become aware of a particular violation of rights occurring within its territory through means other than a formal legal process. In the case of A mnesty International and Others v Sudan, the Commission found that " even where no legal action has been brought by the alleged victims at the domestic level, the government has been sufficiently aware to the extent that it can be presumed to know the situation within its own territory as well as the content of its international obligations. "9. Furthermore, in Article 19 v Eritrea, the Commission held that "if it is shown that the State has had ample notice and time within which to remedy the situation, even if not within the context of the domestic remedies of the State . . . the State may still be said to have been properly inform[ed] and is expected to have taken appro ,_, , �(,RE �'B .q1'() T 4-);, 4r ,, to remedy the violation alleged."10. '°«· <:>: 1 i 1 7 Communication 379/09, (2014) ACHPR, para 57. s Elgak case para 58. 9 Communication 48/90, 50/9 1 , 52/91 , 89/93, (1 999) ACHPR, para 33. 1 ° Communication 275/03, (2007) ACHPR, para 77. All O!gan of the African (4 ..�, Union ,,.":'I To � \, � \ � Q <ta '\. f<..' C, ,, "IIH,CAlt<'- \) '-� 0 'l V 111: ET DES l'{. 1, 12 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 3 1 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-ba n jul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.,nt/O 0 a