52. With regards to the remedies provided for under the CPA and NISS Act, it has been indicated that the three Complainants were allegedly tortured for working with the ICC in the indictment of the President of Sudan. Various credible UN and media reports have shown that individuals and organizations that have been suspected of working with the ICC have been subjected to harassment and intimidation and have also been expelled out of the country. From the various statements made and actions taken by the Government it is obvious that the issue is evidently a politically sensitive issue to the Government of Sudan, and is not tolerated by its officials and institutions. It is against this general background that the case of the three Complainants should be looked at. 53. The Complainants have adduced affidavits recounting the way they were arrested, interrogated, tortured and maltreated by NISS officers. They have also referred to reports by UN Rapporteurs, Amnesty International and other international and national NGOs as evidences attesting to the arrest and detention of the Complainants by NISS officers, and the threat and intimidation that individuals and organizations that are suspected of working or collaborating with the ICC face in Sudan. The Government has however not produced any evidence to rebut such strong allegations except merely pointing to laws in Sudan that victims of torture could use. As the Commission had stated in the case of Jawara v Gambia (the Jawara case) 13 a remedy the availability of which is not evident cannot be invoked by a state to the detriment of the complainant . In the same case the Commission went on to state that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness . 54. The question here is not whether there are laws in Sudan that provide remedies to victims of torture. Rather the question is can the victims or their representatives utilize those avenues under the circumstances? The short answer is NO. In a situation where the victims or their representatives cannot resort to domestic remedies because of general fear of persecution, the Respondent State's assertion that the Complainants could have used the remedies as provided in the CPA or NISS Act or the Interim National Constitution is unreasonable and impractical. In the Jawara case14 the African Commission held that a remedy is considered available only if the applicant can make use of it in the circumstances of his case . 55. In the case at hand as the Complainants were subjected to intimidation, harassment and persecution, it would be irrational to ask them to go back to their country to pursue legal remedies. It would be equally repugnant to expect anyone within Sudan who sympathizes with the cause of the Complainants to file a complaint on their behalf before the relevant state organs. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons and in line with its rulings in the Jawara Case , John D. Ouko v Kenya15 and Rights International v Nigeria16 , the Commission finds that domestic remedies were not available for the victims and their representatives because of fear of persecution. 56. The Complainants also submit that the local remedies are not effective as the Government has failed to investigate and prosecute those responsible even though it was sufficiently aware of the allegations. They further claim that the relevant laws of the country do not impose a duty on the concerned authorities to commence an investigation upon coming to hear about an allegation of torture or following a complaint of torture. Moreover, they claim that to initiate a private investigation the Director General of the NISS has to first lift the immunity of the accused NISS officers and the decision is discretionary and is not subject to judicial oversight. 57. In response to the above allegations the Respondent State submits that the application by the Embassy representative, the Urgent Action request by Amnesty International, the open letter by one of the Complainants to the Director of NISS and media reports cannot be considered as legal proceedings required for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 58. The Commission notes that Complainants are required to exhaust local judicial remedies in accordance with the laws of the country concerned. The laws of the country include laws that govern procedural matters. However, the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is not an absolute rule, it has exceptions put in place to ensure that complainants will not be hindered from bringing potential human rights violations before the Commission as a result of procedural impediments emanating from unjust laws or practices. 7