EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 163 38. The Complainant further states that in fulfilling Article 56(5) of the African Charter, local remedies were not available or sufficient. The Complainant submits with respect to the first victim that in Forum of Conscience v Sierra Leone60 filed on behalf of people who were already executed, the African Commission held that ‘there were no local remedies for Complainants to exhaust and even if such possibility had existed, the execution of the victims had completely foreclosed such remedy’. The Complainant argues that if there is a substantial chance that the first victim has been arbitrarily executed, exhaustion of local remedies is impossible and the requirement to exhaust local remedies is therefore not applicable in this case. 39. The Complainant further argues that if the Respondent State claims that the first victim is still alive, the Respondent State is responsible to prove so. The Complainant cites the African Commission’s decision in Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Jean Simbarakiye) v Democratic Republic of Congo61 in which it stated that: when a person is being held in detention and accused of committing a crime, it is the responsibility of the Member State, through its appropriate judicial bodies, to bring this person promptly before a competent court of law in order to enable him/her to be tried in accordance with the rules guaranteeing the right to fair trial in accordance with national and international standards. 40. The Complainant argues that with respect to the second victim, due to fear of persecution after the disappearance of the first victim, he was forced to flee his country in 1983 to France, after which his office in Mozambique was bombed. When gaining his political asylum status in France, he made a commitment by signing a form in France, stating that he would not undertake any action against Mozambique while living there. He lived in France from 1983 to1994 and in 1995 he moved to the Netherlands where he currently resides. 41. The Complainant further argues that it was thus impossible for the second victim to pursue any domestic remedies following his flight from Mozambique to France for fear of his life. Because of this, he could not travel to Mozambique to undertake legal action himself. The Complainant cites the African Commission’s decision in Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia62, where the African Commission held that: ‘the existence of remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the applicant cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because of generalized fear for Communication 223/98 - Forum of Conscience v Sierra Leone (2000) Communication 247/02 - Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Jean Simbarakiye v Democratic Republic of Congo (2006). 62 Communication 147/95 and 149/96 - Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (2000). 60 61