should have notice of human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violations before being called before an international body. 18 This provision also enables the Commission to avoid playing the role of a court of first instance, a role that it cannot under any circumstances arrogate to itself.19 77. In the Jawara case, the Commission stated that “…the Commission has stressed that, remedies the availability of which is not evident, cannot be invoked by the State to the detriment of the complainant …”; “… The existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not in theory but also in practice. Failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the Victim cannot turn to the judiciary of his country … local remedies would be considered to be unavailable.” 78. In the present Communication, the main issue in contention with regard to exhaustion of local remedies is how the burden of proof is portioned between the Complainant and the Respondent State. 79. The Complainants submit that they have made every attempt to exhaust local remedies in Egypt. As recalled earlier, they cite attempts to do so made by them or on their behalf. A first complaint filed on behalf of all the protesters was closed on the grounds that the perpetrators had not been identified and there were no descriptions of the crimes related to the attack by the Egyptian Security Forces. An application made by one of the Complainants, Ashraf Ruxi, for the case to be re-opened was rejected on the grounds that the Complainant was not a party to the original complaint therefore the application was inadmissible. Finally, another attempt to re-open the case on behalf of three protesters injured during the attack was also rejected on the basis that the three victims did not have any interest in the matter. Reasons also include that the law only allows those whose names appear in the initial complaint and have a direct interest in the matter to lodge an appeal. Communication Nos. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93 – Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (1995) para 36 & Communication 71/92 – Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme v Zambia (1997) para 10. 10th Annual Activity Report: 1996-1997. 19 See Communications 54/91 Malawi African Association/Mauritania; 61/91 Amnesty International/Mauritania; 98/93 Ms. Sarr Diop, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme and RADDHO/Mauritania; 164/97 à 196/97 Collectif des Veuves et Ayants-droit/Mauritania; 210/98 Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l’Homme/Mauritania, reported in 13th Annual Activity Report]. 18 18