84. The Complainant submit that the Special Criminal Tribunals “may just be a tactic by the Sudanese government to avoid prosecution by the International Criminal Court.” That such tribunals are “doomed to failure” because they lack “serious legal reforms ensuring independence of the judiciary.” Hence, the Complainant submit, the Respondent State has failed to bring “…an end to the current climate of intimidation,” thereby casting doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies. 85. It submits that even though the peace talks are likely to result in what could be considered injunctive relief by halting further human rights violations, they do not provide adequate remedies for the human rights violations. 86. The Complainant adds that the UN Human Rights Commission, in its Resolution 2005/82, found that these domestic remedies are ineffective and insufficient in preventing, halting or remedying the forced evictions and accompanying human rights violations in Darfur. 87. Consequently, it cannot be said that these claims have “been settled” as required by Article 56(7) of the African Charter. 88. The Complainant concludes that the present communication satisfies the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. African Commission’s decision on admissibility 89. Admissibility of communications under the African Charter is governed by the conditions set out in Article 56. The Complainants argue that the communication complies with all the requirements under Article 56 of the Charter. The Respondent State argues that the communications be declared inadmissible for not meeting the requirements of Article 56 (2), 56 (4), 56 (5) and 56(7) of the African Charter. 90. Article 56.2 requires communications to be compatible with the Constitutive Act or the African Charter. The Respondent State did not explain how the communication is incompatible with either instrument. The mere submission of a communication by a Complainant cannot be deemed an incompatibility under Article 56.2 of the African Charter. 91. Bringing communications against State Parties to the African Charter is a means of protecting human and peoples’ rights. State Parties to the African Charter are duty bound to respect their obligations under both the Constitutive Act and the African Charter. Article 3(h) of the Constitutive Act enjoins African States to promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter. The African Commission does not consider the filing of complaints before it, an incompatibility with the Constitutive Act or the African Charter. It therefore finds that Article 56.2 has been complied with. 92. Article 56.4 stipulates that communications should not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. The present communications are supported by UN Reports as well as reports and press releases of international human rights organisations. These communications are not based exclusively on mass media reports. The Darfur crisis has attracted wide international media attention. It would be impractical to separate allegations contained in the communications from the media reports on the conflict and the alleged violations. 1 93. In its decision declaring Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia (the Jawara Case) admissible, the Commission stated that“[w]hile it would be dangerous to rely exclusively on news disseminated from the mass media, it would be equally damaging if the Commission were to reject a communication because some aspects of it are based on news disseminated through the mass media. … There is no doubt that the media remains the most important, if not the only source of information. It is common knowledge that information on human rights violation is always gotten from the media…..The issue therefore should not be whether the information was gotten from the media, but whether the information is correct…”. The African Commission therefore finds further that the communications comply with Article 56.4. 94. With respect to Article 56.5, the Respondent State argues that no attempt was made to approach various internal remedies. The Complainants, on the other hand, argue that Article 56.5 does not apply to the communications due to the [/quote]“serious, massive and systematic”[/quote] nature of the alleged violations by the Respondent State. They submit that such violations are incapable of being remedied by domestic remedies.