decision and requesting the Commission to reverse the same in line with Article 56 of the Charter. The State’s submission was transmitted to the Complainants by letter dated 13 October 2014. 35. The Complainants submitted their response to the Respondent State’s Submissions by letter dated 21 November 2014. The Complainants reiterated their request for a hearing on reparations under Rule 99(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in order for the Commission to fully consider the complex and systemic dimensions of the violations and required relief. 36. The Complainants’ response to the submission of the Respondent State on the Merits was forwarded to the Respondent State through Note Verbale dated 4 December 2014. The Law on Admissibility Submissions of the Complainants on Admissibility 37. The Complainants submit that they have fulfilled all the requirements of Admissibility provided under Article 56 of the African Charter. They aver that the Communication: clearly indicates the authors; is compatible with the African Charter; is written in a polite and respectful manner; is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media; is submitted after exhausting local remedies; is submitted within a reasonable period of time after local remedies were exhausted; and does not deal with a case that has been settled internationally or regionally. 38. The Complainants state that they have exhausted all local remedies as required under Article 56(5) of the African Charter. They argue that the Respondent State ignored 15 court orders for the release of the Victim, demonstrating the futility of the Victim’s attempt to seek justice domestically. The Complainants cite Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria, where the Commission stated that the government’s refusal to respect the decisions of two different courts was ‘a dramatic illustration of the futility of seeking a remedy from the Nigerian courts.’2 39. The Complainants aver that the Victim and his sister had made a number of complaints to the public prosecutor regarding his torture in detention and his lack of access to medical treatment but to no avail. 40. The Complainants submit that the change of government in the Respondent State has not changed the situation. They state that after his release in March 2011, the Victim asked the public prosecutor about the complaints he had filed while in detention, only to be told that the files were lost. 41. The Complainants state that the Commission has exempted applicants from exhausting domestic remedies where the State had sufficient notice of a possible 2 Communications 105/93, 128/94, 130/94 and 152/96 – Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (1998) ACHPR para 51. 5