7     thousands of children, should also make the case benefit from the exception to the rule that requires exhaustion of local remedies. There is jurisprudence from the African Commission that violations of rights on a large scale that were well documented over a long period of time in the international community need not necessarily exhaust local remedies as the state has presumed awareness of the serious human rights violations in the country/region. 28. In the presence of these facts and arguments, and jurisprudence supporting the arguments, the Committee is of the view that the case should benefit from an exception to the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. It is therefore declared admissible. 29. In its written submission, and during the oral arguments, the Respondent State has raised a number of points objecting to the admissibility of the Communication. For instance, the Respondent State argued that while the violations of rights alleged to have been committed are provided for under the Charter, and the notion of imputing responsibility of private persons onto the Government could be made as an argument the Government has undertaken various measures in addressing the alleged rights violated under the Charter( is not a clear sentence; may be it would be better if put this way “for instance the respondent state argued that the government has undertaken various measures in addressing the alleged violations even if the rights are provided under the charter and the notion of imputing private persons’ responsibility onto the government could be raised as a violation. . The Respondent State also contended that since “the authors also say that the northern part of Uganda was very insecure thereby making the gathering of information impossible…one wonders that if this was the case, then this evidence being used came from nowhere but from rumors, sensational media reports, publications and the CSOs which already had pre-conceived views against the positive measures that Government was taking”. 30. An argument has also been made that due to the fact that a case against the LRA was referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) by the Government of Uganda on 16th December 2003, and since the subject matter of this Communication is related to the matter before the ICC in the above case against the LRA, there are two parallel processes, and that the Communication does not comply with the requirement on admissibility. 31. The Respondent State has also challenged the assertion by the Complainants that there were no available, effective and adequate channels of redress in Uganda due to the impact of the war and that the area was very insecure to move by road and that due to the big number of victims involved, the Government of Uganda and its channels of redress would not have been able to handle the magnitude of the case. Among others, the respondent State contended that it is not true that the only means of transport was by air because several people were moving by road and security forces were put at intervals; at no time in this episode was any part of Northern Uganda