ti"��() ACH PR \\ African Comm1ss1on on '. . Human Hi9hts our imJ,�'1". Human and Peoples· H ights Collective Hesponsibility 48. Article 56(5) of the African Charter stipulates that ' Communications should be 'sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is evident that this procedure is unduly prolonged. This requirement ensures that States are given the initial opportunity to address any human rights violations. Additionally, it prevents the Commission from functioning as a primary judicial body or a means to bypass local institutions, which not only have a duty to address human rights violations but are also better equipped to do so. In the case of Association Mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v Mauritania,3 the Commission emphasized that local remedies refer to the ordinary legal remedies accessible within jurisdictions for individuals seeking justice. Similarly, in Cudjoe v Ghana, 4 the Commission clarified that local remedies, in principle, encompass courts of a judicial nature. 49. In the case of Jawara v Gambia,5 the Commission acknowledged flexibility in applying the exhaustion of local remedies rule. It stated that Complainants are expected to exhaust local remedies only to the extent that these remedies are available, effective, and adequate. Furthermore, the Commission elaborated on this principle by affirming that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without hindrance; it is deemed effective if it holds the possibility of success. It is considered sufficient if it is capable of addressing the complaint satisfactorily. 50. In light of the submissions, the Complainant's claims for non-exhaustion of local remedies are centered around obstruction of justice from the judiciary, which hampers his practice as an Attorney, and unduly prolonged remedies. According to the Complainant, the Respondent State utilizes the judiciary to discriminate against him. The Complainant also asserts that the statement of the Vetting Board substantiates this allegation. In particular, the Complainant argues that the April 25, 2012, public ruling by the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board of Kenya highlights the lack of effective access to local remedies. 51. The Complainant also asserts that he lodged a Notice of Appeal in the High Court on October 1, 2012, and formally requested the Deputy Registrar for certified copies of the proceedings and the ruling. The Complainant alleges that the Deputy Registrar caused unexplained and excessive delays in providing the requested copies, resulting in approximately five years, spanning from October 1, 2012, to July 17, 2017. The Complainant states that the Court acknowledged its responsibility for these protracted delays and issued a 3 iM-1 Communication 242/01 - Interights, Institute for Human Rights and Development · Association mauritanienne des droits de !'Homme v Mauritania (2004) ACHPR para ,,"P .,,�c R E lA ,,.,4, "'0-o 0 4 Communication 221/98 - Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana (1999) ACHPR, para 14 s<- 1 5 Communications 147/95_149/96- Jawara v Gambia � � � n 10 i" An Organ o! the Afriqan (�\:}\ Union �,m,� ts ct, ia Phone: ( ��::::!�U) 5 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org African Com