65. In fact, Sections 135(2) and 135(3) of the Cameroon Criminal Procedure Code makes it mandatory for government officials, representatives of government authorities and even civil servants to inform the judicial authorities by all means whenever they are aware of an offence. The Commission notes that the Minister of Land Tenure, the Inspector-General of the said ministry and the Land Registrar are government authorities and civil servants. As such, they are bound by the obligation stipulated in the abovementioned provisions. 66. The Commission also recognises the obligation of administrative authorities to initiate local remedies whenever they have the competence. In this regard, the Commission confirms that local remedies which must be exhausted by a Complainant must be of a judicial nature as it indicated in the case of Cudjoe v. Ghana.10 However, the Commission notes that, in cases where administrative remedies are those that are competent under the country’s law, such remedies may be relevant if they exist and are effective.11 67. For example, in the case of Mouvement des Réfugiés Mauritaniens au Sénégal v. Senegal, the Commission admitted the submissions of the parties citing the administrative authorities, in particular the Governor, the Minister of Interior and the Prime Minister, as local remedies through whom the action required should have been initiated before the administrative court. After accepting this argument put forward by the Respondent State, the Commission declared the Communication inadmissible for lack of attempt to exhaust local remedies. On the contrary, the Commission is of the view that when national laws provide for the initiation of local remedies by administrative or politicoadministrative authorities, refusal or failure to initiate legal proceedings amounts to the unavailability of the said remedies by preventing access to them.12 68. The UN Human Rights Committee confirms such an interpretation. In the case of Sankara v. Burkina Faso, the Committee held that ‘‘domestic remedies must be understood as referring primarily13 to judicial remedies” and that “the effectiveness of a remedy also depended, to a certain extent, on the nature of the alleged violation”.14 69. Regarding the issue of the formalities and means of seizure, the Commission therefore notes that the Complainant complied with the formalities and Communication 221/98 (2000) AHRLR 127 (ACHPR 1999) para 14. Ilesanmi v. Nigeria Communication 268/03 (2005) AHRLR 48 (ACHPR 2005). 12 See Mouvement des Réfugiés Mauritaniens au Sénégal v. Senegal Communication 254/02 (2003) AHRLR 131 (ACHPR 2003) paras 19-21. 13 Highlighted by the Commission. 14 Sankara v. Burkina Faso Communication 1159/2003 (2006) AHRLR 23 (HRC 2006) para 6.4. 10 11 14