33. The Respondent State further submits that, under section 4A of the Act, the Complainant may forward his grievances to the Human Rights Division of the National Human Rights Commission, which would conduct an enquiry as to whether there exists sufficient fresh and compelling evidence, and if so, the Human Rights Division will refer the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the issue of conviction. 34. The Respondent State argues that the Commission assesses compliance with Article 56(5) as laid down in Communication 147/95: Jawara v. The Gambia, in which the Commission held that the local remedy referred to under Article 56(5) must be available, effective and sufficient, and further held that “a remedy is available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success and finally sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.” 35. The Respondent State submits that the local remedy available under section 4A of the Act meets all the above mentioned criteria, and given that there is no impediment for the complainant to apply to the Human Rights Division, which could conduct an enquiry and if of the view there exists sufficient evidence, the Human Rights Commission may refer the matter to Court of Criminal Appeal. 36. Accordingly the Respondent State submits that the communication has failed to satisfy Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Complainant’s Additional Submissions on Admissibility 37. The Complainant submits that the communication sufficiently and robustly sets out the human rights violations which have occurred, and concludes that there has been complete compliance with Article 56(2). 38. With regards to Article 56(5), the Complainant submits that the relevant section of the Protection of Human Rights Act provides the following: “Notwithstanding this Act, a convicted person, or his representative, may apply to the Human Rights Division, in such form as may be prescribed, for an enquiry to be conducted as to whether there exists sufficient fresh and compelling evidence that may satisfy the Human Rights Division that a reference should be made under section 19A(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act.” 39. The Complainant further submits that referral of a case to the National Human Rights Commission is “akin to that of executive remedies which are discretionary and nonjudicial.” 40. Additionally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent State did not elaborate on the date when the amended section 4A of the Act came into operation, nor the date when the Members of the Commission were appointed. The Complainant submits that the amendment was introduced in the National Assembly in July 2013, and 5