95. Article 56.5 of the African Charter provides that communications relating to human and peoples’ rights referred to in Article 55 received by the African Commission shall be considered if they “are sent after the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. 96. The issue to be resolved is whether the local remedies were capable of addressing the violations alleged by the Complainants. 97. The African Commission has previously decided on the question of remedies with respect to cases of serious or massive violations of human rights. In the Free Legal Assistance Group, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Union interafricaine des droits de l’Homme, Les témoins de Jehovah/ Zaire, the Commission stated that: ‘[i]n the light of its duty to ensure the protection of human and peoples’ rights…the Commission cannot hold the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is impractical or undesirable for the complaint [s] to seize the domestic courts in the case of each individual complaint. This is the case where there are a large number of individual victims. Due to the seriousness of the human rights situation as well as the great number of people involved, such remedies as might theoretically exist in the domestic courts are as a practical matter 2 unavailable’. 98. The Respondent State argues that the remedies were not only available, but effective and sufficient, and that the Complainant didn’t bother to access them to seek justice for the victims. The Complainants cite several reports which indicate various cases of intimidation, displacement, harassment, sexual and other kinds of violence, which according to the Complainant may not be dealt with appropriately through local remedies. 99. The African Commission has often stated that a local remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. All three criteria must be present for the local remedy envisaged in Article 56.5 to be 3 considered worthy of pursuing. In the Jawara Case the African Commission held that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment. It is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success. It is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 100. In the present communication, the scale and nature of the alleged abuses, the number of persons involved ipso factomake local remedies unavailable, ineffective and insufficient. This 4 Commission has held in Malawi African Association and others v. Mauritania that it “does not believe that the condition that internal remedies must have been exhausted can be applied literally to those cases in which it is neither practicable nor desirable for the Complainants or the victims to pursue such internal channels of remedy in every case of violation of human rights. Such is the case where there are many victims. Due to the seriousness of the human rights situation and the large number of people involved, such remedies as might theoretically exist in the domestic courts are as a practical matter 5 unavailable …” . 101. Such is the case with the situation in the Darfur region, where tens of thousands of people have allegedly been forcibly evicted and their properties destroyed. It is impracticable and undesirable to expect these victims to exhaust the remedies claimed by the State to be available. 102. The African Commission, considering that the alleged violations prima facie constitute “serious and massive violations,”finds that under the prevailing situation in the Darfur, it would be impractical to expect the complainants to avail themselves of domestic remedies, which, are in any event, ineffective. Had the domestic remedies been available and effective, the Respondent State would have prosecuted and punished the perpetrators of the alleged violations, which it has not done. The Commission finds that there were no remedies and therefore the criteria under Article 56.5 does []i[sic][/i] not apply to the Complainants. 103. The Respondent State argued that the violations have been settled by other international mechanisms and cites Article 56.7 of the Charter. 104. The African Commission wishes to state that a matter shall be considered settled within the context of Article 56.7 of the African Charter, if it was settled by any of the UN human rights treaty bodies or any other international adjudication mechanism, with a human rights mandate. The Respondent State must demonstrate to the Commission the nature of remedies or relief granted by the international mechanism, such as to render the complaints res judicata, and the African Commission’s intervention unnecessary.