(ii) that Judges who should have presided over his cases in court often disqualified themselves from hearing the cases deliberately to prolong or delay conclusion of the cases; and (iii) that the lower the lower courts subjected his cases to massive deliberate selective or differential application of the Rule of law, thus triggering a continuous wave of lodgment of expensive time consuming and unnecessary appeals, taking unreasonably long period of time to dispose of cases, supply certified copies of proceedings and rulings/judgment to enable him appeal to higher courts, and dismissed his cases without delving into their merits. 83. The Complainant accused the Respondent State of permitting illeg*lJnvasion and auction of his law firm thereby depriving him of his socio-econofiiic rights, arid of threatening and intimidating him with arrest and imprisonment whenever he represented his clients before some national courts. .,. ·'~/h/· can 84. It is undeniable that local remedies are considered available if they be pursued without impediments, whether practical or legal in nature. In Human Rights Council and Others v. Bthiopia=, the Commission summarized this by stating that: "For this purpose there must exisi relevant eubstantioe and procedural laws, and competent institutions or organs and processes which a complainant can access and utilize in practice without unjustifiable impediments". 85. In relation to the above-mentioned arguments by the Complainant, the Commission does not find any substantive evidence that supports the allegations against the judges, the courts of first instance and the higher courts. The Commission rather observes that the Complainant was able to take his cases all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the apex judicial body, pursul1.:6.t,toArticle 163 (7) of the Constitution. Certainly, while he has not received decisions favorable to him, thisl does not prove the ineffectiveness of the local remedies: Council v Ethiopia cited above, "the effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on the certainty or guarantee of a favorable outcome for the complainant" but is rather premised on the ability of the legal system to guarantee fair trial processes to victims. The Commission has not observed any prima facie evidence to demonstrate the inability of local courts to guarantee the Complainant fair trial processes. 86. As also held in Huma~Rights 32 Communication 445/13 - Human Rights Council and Others v. Ethiopia, para 48 741h Ordinary Session of the ACHPR