25) Furthermore, the Complainant submits that if the applicant cannot turn to the Judiciary in his country because of a generalized fear for his life, local remedies would be considered to be unavailable to him. 30. The Complainant avers that local remedies are either unavailable, insufficient or not effective at all and cannot therefore be accessed freely by him without coming into contact with artificial impediments, hindrances and hurdles placed on the Complainant's way, which barriers are utilized by agents of the Respondent State to impede the Complainant as a legal practitioner and to.the detriment of his clientele. 31. The Complainant further avers that the ruling of|me Ve Board of enya: Sed on 25th April 2 if Judges & Magistrates ress and unequivocal the effect that local impede or delay access. to justice. The Complainant avers that this is because the Vetting Board did not utilise the information supplied to it by the Complainant in icers, thereby exposing the ind retaliation by the said judicial officers as well as retribu' om their friends, sympathizers and colleagues in the Government of the Responden' 32. The Complainant submits that he Commission of Kenya, the»Office tate, the Bar and the Bench. iubmitted complaints to the Judicial Service of the Chief Justice, the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board of Kenya, the Office of the former Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and Constit ional Affairs, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Government Ombudsman, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and to the Law Society of Kenya. 33. However, suspicion deflected inquiries the Complainant submits that the complaints were treated with disdain, and contempt, deliberately prejudiced, trivialized and either filed away, or dismissed or refused without conducting thorough investigations or into the serious allegations. 34. . The Complainant argues that he and his clients were denied access to effective local remedies through, inter alia, the following actions by the judiciary: disqualifying themselves from hearing the Complainant's cases deliberately to prolong or By conclusion of the cases; subjecting the Complainant to “massive deliberate se)