2 36. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Velasquez case while interpreting Article 46 of the American Convention (similar to Article 56.5 of the African Charter) which relates to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, stated that, for the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies to be applicable, the domestic remedies of the State concerned must be available, adequate and effective in order to be exhausted. The Court also opined that where a party raises non-exhaustion of local remedies because of the unavailability of due process in the State, the burden of proof will shift to “the State claiming non-exhaustion and it has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective” . 3 37. In consolidated communication 147/95 and 149/96 , the African Commission also ruled that domestic remedies must be available, effective and sufficient; a domestic remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is effective if it offers a prospect of success and it is sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 38. The African Commission notes that by its own admission, the Respondent State has indicated that it has not yet put in place structures that would ensure that cases are handled ‘within reasonable time’. However, the Respondent State goes ahead to assure the African Commission that the detainees will be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction in due course. 39. The State has a constitutional or statutory requirement to provide an accessible, effective and possible remedy whereby alleged victims can seek recognition and restoration of their rights before resorting to the international system for protection of human rights. Such procedures should not be mere formalities that, rather than enable the realisation of those rights, to the contrary, dilute with time any possibility of success with respect to their assertion, recognition or exercise. 40. Very clearly, the situation as presented by the Respondent State does not afford due process of law for protection of the rights that have been alleged to be violated; the detainees have been denied access to the remedies under domestic law and have thus been prevented from exhausting them. Furthermore, there has been unwarranted delay in bringing these detainees to justice. 41. For these reasons, the African Commission declares this communication admissible. Ruling by the African Commission on request by the Respondent State to revisit the decision on admissibility rd 42. The present communication was declared admissible at the 33 Ordinary Session of the African Commission’s held in May 2003. In response to the African Commission’s request for written submissions on the merits, the Respondent State in a Note Verbale expressed its dismay at the African Commission’s decision to declare the matter admissible. They stated that they found the African Commission’s decision on admissibility unacceptable and therefore requested that the African Commission revisits its decision on admissibility. 43. Before dealing with the merits of the communication, the African Commission would like to pronounce itself on the request by the Respondent State to revisit its decision on admissibility. 44. Firstly, it should be noted that the Respondent State did not bring any new element, either on the facts of the case as considered by the African Commission or on the legal grounds upon which [it] is making such a request. 45. Secondly, Rule 118(2) of the African Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulate that: “If the Commission has declared a communication inadmissible under the Charter, it may reconsider this decision at a later date if it receives a request for reconsideration….” The Rules of Procedure do not make provision for the African Commission to revisit its decision once a communication has been declared admissible. Furthermore, it has been the practice of the African Commission not to reconsider a decision declaring a communication admissible. For these reasons the African Commission upholds its decision on admissibility in this matter. Merits