44. The Commission recalls that an effective remedy will be one that ‘offers a prospect of success’,20 and ‘upon success, the appropriate relief is one that is capable of adequately and timely redressing the specific violation suffered’.21 It should also be noted that a prospect of success of a remedy need not be ‘certainty or guarantee of a favourable outcome for the complainant’ but simply an assurance of full and fair examination of the legal issues and arguments.22 In determining the propensity of a remedy to offer real prospects of success the Commission will assess the nature of the complaint, the ‘general legal and political context’ of the remedies, and the complainant’s personal circumstances.23 45. In the present case, the Complainant had the option to pursue an appeal but decided not to do so on the strength of the legal advice she sought as averred. The Commission notes that the First Complainant appears to have dispensed with her right of appeal because she assumed or was led to believe that the outcome would not be the one she favored. Furthermore, it is clear to the Commission that the First Complainant through the information received from her legal advisors predicted the likely outcomes, costs and duration of the Appeal without placing the issues before the Appeals Court. It must be recalled that the First Complainant was required to make use of all the local remedies, provided that they were effective and sufficient to address the allegations of violations. The Commission refers to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in Patino v Panama24 in which this principle was reaffirmed. Reference is also made to the judgment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (The Court) in Nobert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso in which it was held that “the effectiveness of a remedy is measured in terms of its ability to solve the problem raised by the Applicant”25 46. To determine whether the First Complainant was within her right to abandon the appeal, the Commission must examine whether the appeal in the Respondent State was an effective remedy offering a useful resolution of the First Complainant’s complaint. The Commission recalls the long-observed principle re-affirmed in Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, that an effective appeal procedure is one that ‘subsequent to the hearing by the competent tribunal 20 Communication 147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The), 11 May 2000, para 31. Communication 445/13- Human Rights Council and Others v. Ethiopia, 19 May 2016 22 Communication 445/13- Human Rights Council and Others v. Ethiopia, 19 May 2016 23 Communication 445/13- Human Rights Council and Others v. Ethiopia, 19 May 2016 24 Communication 473/1990, para 5.2 21 May 1994 25 Application 013/2011 21 13