80. Secondly, the Respondent State argues that compatibility ratione personae requires that the Communication should be directed against a state party to the Charter to which the alleged violations could prima facie be attributed. In this regard it argues that evidence presented by the Complainant indicates that the alleged violations of his rights are clearly directed against the United States of America, a state which is not and cannot be a Party to the African Charter. It argues that in finding possible violations, the Commission would as of necessity have to consider the acts of a third non-state party to the Charter and this would be contrary to trite principles of international customary law. Moreover, it so argues, the Complainant’s evidence does not establish a prima facie case that the Complainant was ever in Djibouti altogether. 81. The Respondent State goes further to argue that even if for argument’s sake the Complainant was ever in Djibouti and was mistreated there, he has presented no evidence that the Djiboutian Government had any knowledge that he was in Djibouti; that he was in the custody of Djiboutian authorities; that the alleged violations were perpetrated by Djiboutian state agents; or that Djibouti aided or assisted a third state in the commission of the alleged violations. It concludes by stating that the Complainant’s claim ‘falls far short of achieving the standard of proof required under international law.’ 82. Accordingly, the Respondent State submits that contrary to the Complainant’s submission, the present Communication does not meet the requirements of Article 56(2) of the Charter and must be declared inadmissible. 83. With regard to Article 56(5) of the African Charter requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State argues that the Complainant failed to even attempt to avail himself of local remedies in Djibouti. It argues further that if the Complainant’s position is that a particular remedy did not need to be exhausted, he needs to show that such remedy does not fulfil the criteria of availability, effectiveness, and sufficiency in practice. 84. In this regard, the Respondent State argues that there is no evidence that the Complainant attempted, let alone apprised himself of the available local remedies. It states that the Djiboutian legal system provides for a right of detainees or their representatives to initiate the equivalent of habeas corpus proceedings, citing Articles 139, 140, and 141 of the Djiboutian Procedural Code. It also states that Article 74 of the Djiboutian Constitution contains procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention. 15