manner, the only remedy left to them was to rely on the intervention of the judicial and administrative authorities for local remedies. 37. The Complainant argues that the procedure of local remedies in Cameroon was unduly prolonged. She contends that even though available, local remedies do not achieve their main purpose of being effective. She declares that to their knowledge, the matter has not made any progress at the national level even after bringing the case before the Commission. As such, she prays the Commission to declare that a period of more than three years without any action regarding their complaint is beyond a reasonable period within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 38. The Complainant concludes that up to the date the Commission was seized of the matter, it did not appear that the Respondent State met its obligation to provide the remedy which is required under the African Charter. As such, she requests the Commission to declare the Communication admissible. Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 39. Without disputing the facts as presented by the Complainant, the Respondent State considers, however, that the Communication brought before the Commission cannot be admissible. The Respondent State submits that local remedies exist and are available, and that the Complainant’s husband failed in his obligation to exhaust local remedies. 40. In support of the claim that local remedies exist, the Respondent State invokes Section 157(1) of the Cameroon Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that: “Any person who alleges that he has suffered injury resulting from a felony or misdemeanour may, when lodging a complaint with the competent Examining Magistrate, file a claim for damages”. 41. The Respondent State submits 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. Cameroon further avers that a review of the said statistics shows that during that period all complaints filed were effectively processed and in some cases led to the trial of the accused persons. The Respondent State underscores that in addition to the possibility of filing a claim for damages, the Cameroonian legal system also offered the Complainant the possibility of instituting action by direct summons as 8