48. Article 56(5) has been applied by the Commission in several Communications which confirms and broadens this interpretation. The principle decision on the issue is without doubt the decision passed in the case of Jawara v. The Gambia, in which the Commission explains the nature and quality of local remedies which are required to be exhausted by a Complainant. The Commission stated that within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the African Charter, local remedies must be “available, effective and sufficient”.2 The Commission clarified the meaning of these criteria as follows: A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.3 49. In the case of this Communication, the Complainant alleges to have attempted to exhaust local remedies and that such remedies were not made available by the Respondent State which, moreover, unduly prolonged them. For its part, the Respondent State simply contests the efforts made by the Complainant claiming that it never received any of the alleged petitions. Under such circumstances, it is incumbent on the Commission to determine if the Complainant actually attempted to exhaust local remedies and if the said remedies exist and are available, effective and sufficient. The Commission will also determine if, according to the Complainant’s allegations, the remedy sought was unduly prolonged. 50. In the Jawara case, the Commission emphasises that the existence of a local remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility.4 On this point, the Respondent State provides details to support its claim that the availability and effective use of this remedy by individuals are demonstrated by the statistics on indemnification claims filed with the Mfoundi High Court in Yaoundé over the period from 27 November to 28 December 2007, and from January to February 2009 during which the Complainant’s husband alleges to have attempted to exhaust local remedies. 51. After considering the Respondent State’s submission, the Commission does not have any doubt about the existence of local remedies in Cameroon, both in theory and in practice. The Complainant does not also contest the existence of such remedies since she alleges that her husband brought the matter to their attention. The Complainant rather contests the inaccessibility of the said Jawara v. The Gambia Communication 147/95-149/96 (2000) AHRLR 107 (2000) para 31. Jawara para 32. Highlighted by the Commission. 4 Jawara para 35. 2 3 10