of first instance, may reasonably lead to a reconsideration of the case by a superior jurisdiction, which requires that the latter should, in this regard, provide all necessary guarantees of good administration of justice’.26 If the appeal procedure did not satisfy fair trial guarantees, or if it did not provide ‘an effective, impartial adjudication of the matter’,27 then it may not need to be exhausted. There would, however, need to be evidence to support this.28 47. In the present case, no evidence has been led by the First Complainant to undermine the fairness of the trial in the High Court. As a matter of fact the First Complainant takes issue not with the regularity of procedure but rather with the substance of the decision, which is the particularly formalistic approach of the trial judge in arriving at their ruling. It must further be noted that even by their own admission, the Complainants realise that whilst the decision of the High Court was not to their liking, it is justifiable under Kenyan Law. Furthermore, the Complainants have not tangibly demonstrated any potential for impartial adjudication or lack of capacity to grant good administration of justice on the part of the Appeals Court. Furthermore the potential of the Appeals Court to grant the remedy sought by the First Complainant as set out in her prayers before the High Court has not been contested. Based on this understanding, it is clear from the submission that at law there is no evidence to suggest that the appeal at the First Complainant carried no prospects of success. It must be recalled that as stated in Sana Dumbuya v The Gambia, the Complainant bears the burden of proof to present evidence of exhaustion of local remedies and failing which the communication will be declared inadmissible.29The Commission is convinced that it was concretely possible for the Appeals Court to determine whether her rights had been violated and to access a remedy as required by Commission standards. In this regard, the Commission takes the view that the First Complainant has not demonstrated why it was impossible to obtain remedy via appeal and that her fears on the usefulness of the remedy were insufficient to convince the Commission otherwise. The Commission notes that the African Court has previously established in Mtikila and subsequently in Konate that “there was no need to go through the same judicial process the outcome of which was known”.30 However the Court has qualified this position to only apply in instances where 26 Communication 467/14 – Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, 27 May 2016, para 163. Communication 467/14 – Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, 27 May 2016, para 166. 28 Communication 467/14 – Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, 27 May 2016, para 164. 29 Communication 127/94 30 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (APDH) v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668, para 103 27 14