50. The Complainants have submitted counter arguments to the issues raised by the Respondent State reproduced here in paragraphs 26 – 30 above. 51. The practice of the African Commission as articulated in its information Sheet No 3 on Communication Procedures is very clear on the fact that a Complainant, in order to meet the exhaustion of local remedies requirement, must take his/her case to the highest judicial authority of a State Party.9 The African Commission notes that the Kenyan Court of Appeal was, at the time this Communication was brought before it, the Court of final jurisdiction in Kenya. It also notes that the Respondent State does not dispute the fact that this court had entertained the Victim’s case and handed down a binding final decision without any possibility of appeal. It is therefore clear that the Victim’s case was entertained by the most superior court in Kenya. 52. The question that remains to be answered is whether the Complainants were required to have recourse to other local remedial avenues after the Court of Appeal’s decision in order to meet the requirement of Article 56(5) of the African Charter. An assessment of the nature of local remedies required to be exhausted before a Complaint can be submitted to the African Commission is necessary in order to provide a satisfactory answer to the above question. 53. The African Commission has held in Alfred Cudjoe v Ghana10 and reaffirmed in Good v Botswana11 that the internal remedy to which Article 56(5) refers entails a remedy sought from courts of a judicial See Information Sheet No 3on Communication Procedures of the African Commission available on www.achpr.org . 10 Communication 221/98 (1998 – 1999) 12th Activity Report ACHPR. para 14 11 Communication 313/05 (2010) 28th Activity Report ACHPR. para 88 9 14