44. In that regard, the Complainant recalled the Commission's jurisprudence in Dawda Jawara v The Gambia where it held that a remedy is: "considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint"13 ; and in Article 19 v Eritrea, where it elaborated that exhaustion of domestic remedies under Articles 56( 5) of the African Charter, " ... presupposes: (i) the existence of domestic procedures for dealing with the claim; (ii) the justiciability or otherwise, domestically, of the subject-matter of the complaint; (iii) the existence under the municipal legal order of provisions for redress of the type of wrong being complained of; and (iv) available effective local remedies, that is remedies sufficient or capable of redressing the wrong complained of'. 14 45. To support this submission, the Complainant submits, firstly, that, the Victim could not challenge his arbitrary detention because it is lawful under Sudanese law, despite being prohibited by the African Charter. The Complainant submits that while the African Charter protects the right to liberty under Article 6 thereof and its Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (the Guidelines) require that arrests should be carried out by competent authorities pursuant to a warrant, which should contain, 'reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed an offence or is about to commit an arrestable offence', 15 Article 50 (1) (e) of the National Security Act, 2010 (NSA 2010) of the Respondent State, on the other hand, vests the NSS with the power to detain any suspected person, and does not require that an arrest warrant be issued before an individual is arrested. It was reiterated that in the present case, the Victim was allegedly arrested on 26 June 2011, without an arrest warrant. 46. Also, the Complainant submits that while the Guidelines require that all individuals in pre-trial detentions should, "either personally or through their representative, take proceedings before a judicial authority, without delay, in order to have the legality of their detention reviewed", Article 50 of the NSA 2010, permits the NSS to detain an individual for four and a half months without judicial review to determine the legality of their detention.16 In light of this, the Victim was allegedly presented on numerous occasions before a judge simply to extend his detention and not to review the legality of his detention.17 47. Secondly, the Complainant avers that the Victim was allegedly deprived access to his lawyer, and in this regard, indicates that Article 51 (2) of NSA 2010 provides that a detained person can have access to their lawyer, "only if it does not prejudice the progress of interrogation, enquiry and investigation", for which reason the decision whether a detainee should or should not have access to his lawyer is left to the NSS without judicial oversight. Consequently, the Complainant argues that the Victim was allegedly only able to access his lawyer on, 21 June 20;1 - ,yi:!ar after his detention, and was therefore unable to challenge his arbitp ..._ ~~tentlg_n1 .c,. and deprivation of procedural safeguards because the action take ~ ~ ·s c~, -f u 13 Communication 147/95-149/96, (2000) ACHPR, para.32. C. 0 "' ~ 15 Guideline 3 (a). 17 See details of the extension of the Complainant's detention, as set out in para. 11 above. ,. Cl ~ ~ 14 Communication 275/2003, para.47. 16 Article 50 (e), (fj, (g), (h) u> 0 !<. "- 4•1s1c;.1"' "'{/ '<. v°'-... I'~ E1 Llf"- 9