the Communication is declared inadmissible entirely or in the severable respects that it does not satisfy any of the conditions.12 45. Further, the threshold admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the Charter broadly espouse fundamental public policy considerations, and examination of a Communication’s admissibility does not solely depend on whether compliance with any of the conditions is in dispute between the parties. It is the Commission’s duty to ensure, without undue formalism, that all the requirements are satisfied for a Communication to pass for further consideration on the merits. 46. In the present Communication, the Respondent State does not contest admissibility in terms of Article 56(1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the Charter. Having examined the Complainant’s submissions as summarised at paragraph 28 above, the Commission does not reckon any issue with respect to the uncontested conditions. Accordingly, the Commission is satisfied that the Communication complies with Article 56(1), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the Charter. 47. Regarding the requirement to exhaust local remedies, Article 56(5) of the Charter provides that Communications must be submitted to the Commission after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. The requirement to exhaust local remedies must be appreciated in light of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter which provides for the right to appeal to competent national organs against acts violating one’s fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force.13 The requirement to exhaust local remedies entails the exercise of the right to appeal to competent national organs against acts violating one’s fundamental rights. 48. As is patent from the language of Article 56(5) of the Charter, the remedy must be available (…if any…) and not obviously unduly prolonged. If the remedy is not available, or if available, the procedure for pursuing it is obviously unduly prolonged, a complainant is absolved from pursuing or exhausting it before impleading the State Party before the Commission. These two are treaty exceptions to the rule. A remedy is Communication 304/05 – FIDH and others v Senegal (2006) ACHPR para 38; Communication 338/07 Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Nigeria (2010) ACHPR para 43; and Communication 284/03 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR para 81; and Communication Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) ACHPR para. 44. 13 Communication 48/90, 50/91, 89/93 - Amnesty International [et] al.v Sudan (1999) ACHPR para. 31; Communication 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) ACHPR para. 49 12 12 | P a g e