39. The Respondent State further argues that the Complainants have not exhausted remedies such as the Judicial Review which is provided for in Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Code. This provision, argues the Respondent State, would have enabled the Courts to compel the Ministry of Immigration and their Department of Registration to issue the Applicants and their representatives with national ID cards and passports. 40. The Respondent State also argues that the Complainants have not lodged an official claim with the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights to look into the matter. It states that the Kenyan National Commission for Human Rights is an independent body that acts as a watch dog on human rights issues. 41. The Respondent State further argues that the Complainants have not adduced any evidence to show that they pursued administrative remedies from the relevant Government Ministries on behalf of the Nubian community. The Respondent State argues that the Kenyan judicial system meets the test of 'availability', 'sufficiency', and 'effectiveness'. It claims that similar complaints by the Njemps community, a minority group in Kenya, have been adequately addressed. 42. Even though the Respondent State agrees that social, cultural and economic rights are not expressly protected under the Kenyan Constitution, the Kenyan Government endeavours to respect, protect, promote, fulfil and ensure that these rights are realized. 43. The Respondent State also addressed the case of Yunis Ali and 19 others referred to by the Complainants. The Complainants argue that the High Court had granted orders to enable Yunis Ali and others to file a class action suit on behalf of the Nubian community. The Respondent State does not seem to argue or deny that fact; it however argues that even in the case of Yunis Ali and 19 others, local remedies have not been exhausted. Analysis of the Commission 44. The African Commission has held that the rule of exhausting domestic remedies is the most important condition for Admissibility of Communications. There is therefore no doubt that in all Communications seized by the African Commission, the first requirement considered concerns the exhaustion of local remedies....5 45. The question, which remains to be answered, is whether or not the remedies were available or unavailable, and further if they were available, were they effective? The availability of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. 46. The Complainant puts forward the argument that the exception to the rule in Article 56(5) is applicable in this Communication, because local remedies are unavailable, ineffective and have been unduly prolonged. 47. The onus is on the Respondent State, Kenya, to demonstrate that local remedies are available, sufficient and effective.6 The African Commission has unequivocally held that when a Government argues that the Communication must be declared inadmissible because the local remedies have not been exhausted, the Government then has the burden of demonstrating the existence of such remedies.7 48. The Grand Chamber of the European Court for Human Rights has expressed the opinion that: it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time.8 The Court also explained: ...that is to say, that it was accessible was one which was capable of providing redress in 5