well-founded allegations of torture and ill-treatment at least since the date of the complaint brought by the applicants in September 2006. In spite of this notification, the authorities have not taken any action whatsoever to remedy the situation. 32. For the above reasons, the Complainants conclude that there are no effective remedies of which the applicants could avail themselves to compel a full investigation without the approval of the police and/or to seek other forms of reparation and urge the Commission to dispense with the requirement to exhaust local remedies in the circumstances. Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 33. The Respondent State submits that the Complainants have failed to exhaust local remedies. According to the Respondent State the Directorate of Police to whom the Complainants submitted their complaint is neither a court nor a prosecution office and above all, is not the highest court in Sudan, which would satisfy the requirement of article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 34. The Respondent State submits that in the Sudanese legal system, no criminal suit is initiated by virtue of a complaint to the Directorate of the Police. In that regard, the Respondent State cites Article 32 of the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Act of 1991, which provides that a criminal suit shall either be initiated upon taking cognizance by the General Criminal Police or the Prosecution Attorney based on the local jurisdiction. 35. The Respondent State argues that the lawyers of the Victims know the procedure for initiating criminal cases against the police but failed to pursue the right procedure by approaching the Prosecution Attorney who is the competent authority in such cases. 36. On the issue of immunity enjoyed by members of the police force, the Respondent State submits that this is just a mere procedural immunity granted to them for the purpose of accomplishing their work. If after a preliminary investigation, a prima facie evidence exists implicating a policeman in the commission of any crime, the prosecutor general requests the Ministry of Interior to lift the immunity. The Respondent State further submits that all decisions during this procedure are subject to appeal and that in all cases where there are crimes committed by members of the police, their immunities are lifted and the perpetrators are tried in ordinary courts 37. The Respondent State finally submits that the Victims could have approached the Constitutional Court if they felt they had been denied the right to litigation. The Respondent State cites Article 35 of the 2005 Interim National Constitution of the Sudan which provides that the right to litigation shall be guaranteed for all persons and that no person shall be denied the right to litigation. 38. For the above reasons, the Respondent State implores the Commission to declare the Communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 39. The provisions of Article 56 of the African Charter govern the Admissibility of Communications submitted before the Commission. Article 56 sets out seven conditions which must be complied with cumulatively for any Communication to be Admissible. 40. From the submissions of the parties above, it is evident that the Admissibility of the Communication is only contested on the grounds of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56 (5) of the Charter. The Commission is satisfied that sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Article 56 of the African Charter have been complied with and will further examine the issues raised under Article 56 (5) to determine whether local remedies have been exhausted. 41. The Complainants submit that they have not exhausted local remedies but urge the Commission to declare the Communication admissible for a number of reasons. They contend that the Respondent State has failed to investigate their allegations of torture after a very long time and in spite of being put on notice; the Criminal Procedure Code of Sudan does not oblige officials to commence an investigation following a complaint of torture and any criminal suit against police officers is subject to the lifting of the immunity which police officers in Sudan generally enjoy. The Complainants also argue that there is neither an explicit right nor any established procedure for compelling police officers to commence an investigation. 42. The Complainants further argue that the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Code provides for the right to bring a private prosecution which can only proceed with the approval of the head of the Police and after the lifting of the immunity of the individual police officers concerned. The Complainants also maintain that 4