56. The Respondent State argues that the decision by the PPO was temporary and that the case could be re-opened if new evidences emerge to the effect that the culprits have been identified and the police would be asked to continue with their inquiry. The Respondent State submits that procedures could still be pursued and criminal proceedings could be initiated if new evidences arise. 57. The Respondent State submits that: o Investigations were carried following the complaints lodged on 25 May 2005; o Witnesses as well as police officers were interrogated; o Videotapes and CDs submitted by the Complainants were viewed; and o Submitted medical reports were examined. 58. The Respondent State submits that the investigations have not established an act of negligence, inaction or incitement from security officers in the present matter. 59. The Respondent State explains that the PPO decided that, in reference to the alleged sexual assaults, there was no ground for the crime of violation of honour, but that evidence of severe beating, in accordance with the Penal Code, was established. The African Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 60. The only legal issue at stake in the present case is the exhaustion of local remedies. With respect to the Respondent State's submission that there was no violation of provisions of the African Charter, the African Commission notes that those arguments cannot be examined at the Admissibility stage. Determination of violation(s) to the African Charter is made during the Merits stage of a Communication once that Communication has been declared Admissible by the African Commission. 61. The African Commission will therefore only examine Article 56(5) in relation to the present Communication. 62. Article 56(5) of the African Charter requires that Communications should be sent to the African Commission after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. A Complaint pending before the local courts means remedies have not been exhausted. In the present case, the Complainants argue that they have exhausted all the local courts and their case is not pending before them. However, according to the Respondent State, police inquiries have been temporarily stopped and could be reopened when there is new information and evidences. 63. The African Commission has inferred that the initial onus to demonstrate that local remedies have been exhausted is on a Complainant. Once a Complainant shows that there are no local remedies available in the Respondent State, the burden then falls on the Respondent State to prove that an effective remedy is available and has not been exhausted. 64. In Rencontre Africaine pour h. Defense des Droits de l'Homme v. Zambia, the African Commission examined the respective obligation of the parties in terms of exhaustion of local remedies and declared: "When the Zambian Government argues that the Communication must be declared Inadmissible because the local remedies have not been exhausted, the Government then has the burden of demonstrating the existence of such remedies."6 Therefore, in the present case, the Respondent State must prove to the African Commission that judicial procedures to remedy the violations are still being pursued, otherwise its submission could be considered a mere statement. 65. The African Commission notes that, pursuing exhaustion of local remedy requires the availability of effective remedies. In the instant matter, the decision of the FPO not to prosecute, as well as the confirmation of that decision following the Victims' appeal, is sufficient evidence that the conditions for the exhaustion of local remedies have been met. The Victims were left with no other remedy because the inquiry procedures have been stopped. 66. It is the African Commission's view that the Respondent State's submission on the temporary halt of inquiry procedures cannot justify the reason why Victims should be left without any recourse until a potential reopening of a matter, following new evidence. The African Commission notes that eighteen (18) months have passed since the alleged violations occurred and probabilities for the inquiry to be re-opened are slim since evidence has already been gathered and examined. The Respondent State, also did not supply the African Commission with any evidence that it has instituted actions to find 'the new evidence.' 5