remedies following the formalities required by law, that these remedies were sought from the competent authorities, and that the necessary efforts within the meaning of the condition of the exhaustion of local remedies were made. As such, the remedies were effectively sought and it was incumbent upon the Respondent State to ensure access to the remedies, an obligation which the Respondent State failed to discharge. Such failure rendered the remedies unavailable given that they were inaccessible. Moreover, the failure to act by the authorities of the Respondent State made remedies to be unduly prolonged, which resulted in their ineffectiveness. Having concluded on the unavailability and ineffectiveness of local remedies, the Commission is of the view that it is no longer necessary to consider if local remedies were sufficient. Decision of the Commission on Admissibility 88. For the above reasons, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights declares the Communication admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter. Consideration of the Merits Complainant’s Submissions on the Merits Alleged violation of Article 14 89. In her merits submissions, the Complainant presents arguments to prove that she has property right over the contested property, that she met the national legal requirements for buying real estate, that the State failed in its obligations and that as a result of its failure her right to property under Article 14 of the African Charter was violated. In the alternative, the Complainant claims a violation of the right to adequate housing by invoking the provisions of Articles 16 and 18 of the African Charter. 90. In proving that she has property right, the Complainant submits that it is only the land certificate which can be considered as the indisputable proof of the right of ownership. In this regard, she submits that the duly obtained land certificate no. 38826 issued on 6 August 2007 by the Respondent State is an incontestable proof of ownership. According to the Complainant, the State was the original owner of the land in question, a part of which it retroceded to her vendor under another land certificate no. 38602. The Complainant submits that the land certificate issued by the Respondent State gives her unassailable, inviolable and final right of ownership over the land and that its 19