82. Such failure inevitably undermines the effectiveness of remedies, even though the Respondent State has done so well to prove their existence in its submission on admissibility. The judicial and administrative remedies that are capable of ensuring the protection and enjoyment of the right to property supposedly granted to the Complainant by the Government of Cameroon through a land certificate have remained inaccessible to the Complainant as a result of the Respondent State’s lack of action. 83. Regarding the second obligation following seizure, in its jurisprudence the Commission has adopted the stance that the Respondent State bears the burden to prove the existence and availability of local remedies once the Complainant has shown evidence of having sought such remedies. The Commission states this position on the shift in the burden of proof in the case of Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme v. Zambia.24 84. The Commission recalls the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee in the Sankara case to note that the burden of proof does not mean that the Respondent State should confine itself to a mere recital of remedies available under its law but should rather demonstrate that they would have constituted effective remedies for the applicant.25 85. The Commission notes that the Respondent State merely recited remedies, in particular judicial remedies, without necessarily demonstrating their effectiveness in the case of the Complainant. In the present case, the administrative remedies mentioned by the Complainant and which were specifically relevant to her complaints were not commented upon by the Respondent State. Overall, the Respondent State was unable to refute the Complainant’s evidence of having tried in vain to seize the competent authorities. The Commission underscores that the burden of proof shifts from the Complainant to the Respondent State once the latter contests the exhaustion of local remedies.26 86. In view of the foregoing, the Commission notes that local remedies were unduly prolonged and that in the circumstances of this case the Respondent State was unable to refute this fact. As such, the Commission concludes that since these remedies were unduly prolonged, they cannot be effective. 87. The Commission is of the view that local remedies existed both in theory and in practice. The Commission finds that the Complainant sought local Communication 71/92 (2000) AHRLR 321 (ACHPR 1996) para 12. Sankara v. Burkina Faso Communication 1159/2003 (2006) AHRLR 23 (HRC 2006), para 6.4. 26 See Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and One Another v. Zimbabwe Communication 293/2004 (2008) AHRLR 120 (ACHPR 2008) para 44. 24 25 18