Defense Centre v. Gambia, according to which it is incumbent upon anyone filing a communication on behalf of the victims to take concrete steps to comply with the provisions of Article 56(5) of the Charter or to demonstrate that it is impossible for them to do so. According to the Respondent State, the Commission also observed that: “the victim does not need to be physically in a country to avail himself of available domestic remedies, such could be done through his counsel”. 283. Similarly, the Respondent State recalls that in the Ukraine and Netherlands v. Russia judgment, the ECHR, ruled inadmissible individual applications filed by Ukraine concerning children allegedly abducted by Russia, on the grounds that Russian courts should have been seized even if the alleged abductions had taken place in Ukraine. 284. The Respondent State submits that, in the instant case, the Applicant has not proved that it has exhausted available local remedies, even for wrongful acts committed outside Rwanda, nor can it rely on any waiver in this respect. 285. The Respondent State maintains that Chapter IV of its Constitution guarantees the protection of rights and freedoms, with Article 150 thereof conferring on the judiciary, which is independent, the task of protecting the rights whose violation is invoked in this Application. 286. It avers that Rwandan courts are accessible to any person who is the victim of an alleged human rights violation, regardless of where these violations were committed, provided that such violations are punishable under Rwandan law, which is the case. In this regard, it references Article 11 of Law No 68/2018 of 30 August 2018 defining offences and penalties in general, which sets out punishment for Rwandan citizens who commit an offence outside the territory of Rwanda. 287. The Respondent State submits that, depending on the nature of the offence and the penalty incurred, any victim of a human rights violation, with the assistance of the Public Prosecutor’s Office or acting on his or her own 64