EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 62 53. The Complainant referred the African Commission to its decision in Jawara v The Gambia37 where the African Commission held that local remedies must be available, effective and sufficient; meaning that it can be pursued without impediment, offers a prospect of success, and is capable of redressing the complaint. 54. The Complainant avers that the Respondent State is aware of the violations and did not remedy the situation. They argue that, given the scale of the human rights violations involved, the large number of victims, and the unaccessibility of the Nigerian legal system to the poor and the marginalized, local remedies could not be exhausted. 55. The Complainant, basing its arguments on World Organisation Against Torture and others v Zaire38 where the African Commission decided that it is not expected from the complainants to wait for an ’unduly prolonged’ procedure of local remedies. 56. The Complainant submits that given the scale of the human rights violations in the present Communication, and the large number of the victims involved, local remedies are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient.39 57. The Respondent State on the other hand, contends that the Complainant did not use the available national legislation to remedy the violations alleged before bringing the complaint to the African Commission, and thus has not fulfilled the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 58. In the view of the African Commission, the purpose of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter is based on the principle that ‘the Respondent State must first have an opportunity to redress by its own means within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual.’40 The African Commission has also stated that this well established rule in international law conforms to the principle that international law does not replace national law, and international mechanisms do not replace national judicial institutions.41 59. The jurisprudence of the African Commission, in determining compliance with this requirement, laid down ‘[t]hree major criteria…that is: the local remedy must be available, effective and sufficient.’42 Nevertheless, for the local remedy to fulfill these criteria, the African Commission elaborates in Jawara v The Gambia ‘A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.’43 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Jawara v The Gambia World Organisation Against Torture and Others v Zaire The Complainant referenced as well to Communications Malawi Africa Association and Others v Mauritania Rencontre Africaine pour la Defence des Droits de l'Homme v Zambia Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia para 48 Communication 300/05 – Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project v Nigeria (2008) ACHPR para 45 Jawara v The Gambia para 32