98. What guarantees that other Victims would have the courage to approach the local courts for redress without being arrested or facing the same ordeal? 99. In Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida, and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan38, the Commission held that where the victims cannot resort to domestic remedies because of a general fear of persecution, pursuing such a remedy would be impractical and unreasonable. Based on this jurisprudence, it is safe to say that the prevailing situation in the country at the time, as illustrated above, rendered local remedies unavailable. 100. On the last point, the Complainants cite the National Electoral Board and the Federal Supreme Court as State institutions with jurisdiction to entertain election petitions. The Complainants, however, posit that because these institutions declined to adjudicate on the merit of election petitions following the 2010 elections, local remedies are unavailable or insufficient. According to them, approaching the same institutions with the present Complaints would be a waste of time. 101. Generally speaking, and according to the jurisprudence of the Commission,39 the principle of exhaustion of local remedies requires that the Complainant or Victim provides some prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies. 102. Additionally, in Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v 40 Zaire and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme v Zambia,41 the Commission held that the requirement on exhaustion of local remedies is founded on the principle that a Government should have notice of human rights violations to have the opportunity to remedy such violations before approaching an international body. 103. Based on the facts before this Commission, the present Communication has not been submitted to the domestic courts for adjudication. The Complainants’ excuse for the Victims not approaching the local courts is based on the conduct of the Courts in matters relating to the 2010 elections. The Commission recalls that in 38 n 2 above 54 & 55. 39 Communication No. 86/93- Ceesay v The Gambia; Communication No. 127/94- Dumbuya v The Gambia. 40 Communication Nos 25/89;47/90;56/91;100/93- Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire, para 36. 41 Communication No 71/92- Recontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme v Zambia, para 10. ~ 18 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/