p.CHP� r, f) 6�!:LE� Human Rights ou< Human and Peoples' Rights Collective Responsibility view that the Complainant could not be expected to access domestic remedies in the circumstances of his case. In the case of Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, the Commission took cognisance of the particular fear that torture victim's harbor when deciding to institute a case within a State. 15 Consequently, the Commission believes that domestic remedies were unavailable, and even if they were, the Complainant would face impediments in attempting to access them. 64. The second submission of the Complainant is that local remedies are insufficient. The Complainant argues that the legal system in the Respondent State fails to provide effective and sufficient remedies for victims of torture, citing particularly the provisions of the NSA, which provides NISS officials, some of whom the Complainant alleges tortured him, with immunity from criminal and civil procedures thereby ensuring that there is no realistic prospect of successfully redressing the Complaint in the Respondent State. The Complainant notes further that although the NISS Director may lift this immunity, past practice indicates that this has never happened. 65. The Commission will look at the provisions of the NSA and the CPA to determine the extent of immunity provided to NISS officials and the nature of the power granted to the NISS Director to lift such immunity: Section 52(3) of the NSA provides that: Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act and any right to claiming compensation against NSS, no civil or criminal procedures may be brought against a member or associate unless upon the approval of the Director. The Director shall give such approval whenever it appears that the subject of such accountability is not related to official business, provided that the trial of any staff or associates shall be before a closed criminal court, during their service or after its termination, concerning acts committed by them. Section 34 and 35 of the CPA, in the Elgak case, the Sudanese government argued that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 52(3) complainant may file a petition to the NISS Director to lift t terms of section 35 of the CP A. 16. 1 5 Communication 288/04, (2012) ACHPR, para 75. 1 6 Elgak case para 34. In this case, the Sudanese Government argued that a petition may be filed with Pr to proceed with Director of the NISS to lift the immunity of the alleged perpetrator, however, the Commission that the only person who may lift the immunity is the NISS Director. 14 An Ogan or the Afri�an tr�1, Union V...';r;r,il. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 F ax: (220) 441 OS 04 Email: au-baniul@africa-union.org https:/achpr au.,nt/0 0 a