rd 36. While considering the file for seizure at its 33 Ordinary Session, the African Commission realised that the Complainants were bringing a matter that was evidently still before the High Court of Kenya. Consequently, the African Commission deferred being seized with the communication and sought clarification on developments that had taken place with respect to the whole constitutional review process upon which some aspects of this communication was based. In addition, the African Commission sought information from the Complainants as to whether or not they could not challenge the staying orders that had been granted by the High Court before a court of superior jurisdiction in Kenya. 37. In their response to the clarifications sought by the African Commission, the Complainants argued that it would not be possible for them to be admitted as interested parties in the suit without leave of court. They stated that leave is granted at the discretion of the judge and under the circumstances they were apprehensive that leave would not be granted. Furthermore, they argued that they could not practically enforce any right of appeal against orders obtained in a suit in which the primary Respondent/Appellant had boycotted the court‟s jurisdiction; And even if the primary Respondents had defended the suit, the Complainants submitted that the likelihood of enforcing their rights as interested parties at Appeal Court would have been unsuccessful because the Court of Appeal through Justice Moijo ole Keiwua was itself a party to a suit in the nature of a class action. 38. The Complainants argued further that the principle that they want the African Commission to settle is whether judges can hear matters that actually affect them. 39. In their subsequent submissions on admissibility the Complainants informed the African Commission that indeed they went ahead together with other members of the civil society in Kenya to make an application moving court as „ordinary citizens and taxpayers‟ to join them as interested parties in the suit against the CKRC and the Chair of the CKRC. Their“application” to be joined as interested parties in the judicial review application was allowed. 40. Quite evidently from the situation described above, the Complainants eventually approached the courts even though they believed that no member of the judiciary in Kenya would make a decision against the interests of their fellow 2 judges. However, such concerns should have been eliminated when the judges actually granted the application in their favour. 41. The African Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on the Complainants to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies. It is not enough for the Complainants to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated incidences. In this regard, the African Commission would like to refer to the decision of the Human 2 Rights Committee in A v Australia in which the Committee held that “mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or prospect of financial costs involved did not absolve the author from pursuing such remedies”. 42. The African Commission would be setting a dangerous precedent if it were to admit a case based on a Complainant‟s apprehension about the perceived lack of independence of a country‟s domestic institutions, in this case the Judiciary. More so, where, as in this case, the Complainants have not adduced ample evidence to demonstrate the validity of their apprehensions. Furthermore, the Complainants have not even tested the principle that they wish the African Commission to settle before the domestic courts; and by so doing they are in essence asking the African Commission to take over the role of the domestic courts, a role which clearly does not belong to the African 3 Commission as a treaty body 43. The Respondent State has argued that the issues in the communication have been overtaken by events. Both Justices Moijo ole Keiwua and Vitalis Juma are currently on suspension and are under investigation by a tribunal. They have also indicated that the Application brought by Justices Moijo ole Keiwua & Vitalis Juma against the Chair of the CKRC and the CKRC is for all intents and purposes dead because none of the parties have pursued it.