exhaustion of all effective local remedies.9 In the same case, the Commission also makes reference to a ruling of the European Human Rights Court which argues that even where the Complainants have reasons to believe that the available local remedies and the possible appeals are likely to be ineffective, they should still seek these remedies considering that, “it is generally up to the victim to provide the national courts with the opportunity to exercise the existing rights for interpretation purposes”. In the instant case, the Victims did not prove that a lawsuit was brought before the competent local courts in order to obtain redress for the alleged acts of torture, which the Respondent State avers is criminalized in the Criminal Code. 70. The African Commission observes that in this particular case, the Victims did not provide evidence of having seized the competent courts, to have the perpetrators of these acts of torture convicted and their seized movable and immovable property restored. 71. The African Commission further observes that in failing to seize the local courts, for the purpose of having the perpetrators of these acts of torture brought to justice, and for the restoration of their property, the Victims did not provide the local courts the opportunity to adjudicate on the matter. 72. Furthermore, in Article 19 versus Eritrea, 10 the African Commission was of the opinion that “it was incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary measures to exhaust or, at least, to attempt to exhaust local remedies.” 73. The Commission therefore concurs with the Respondent State that the national courts did not have the opportunity to find a remedy for the violations which are 9 Ibid, paragraph 84 Communication 275/03: Article 19 vs. Eritrea, para. 65 10 16