to hear these cases. For this reason the African Commission strictly applies the rule governing the exhaustion of local remedies and it has only waived this condition in the few circumstances that justify it. 62. The Complainant asserts that it fulfilled this requirement on the exhaustion of local remedies before seizing the Commission because it had no possibility of instituting legal proceedings locally given that Article 5 of the Decree Law establishing the Military Court made no provision for either opposition or appeal against the judgements delivered by this Court, an argument which has been refuted by the Respondent State. 63. The African Commission has clearly indicated that when a Government “argues that the Communication should be declared inadmissible because local remedies have not been exhausted, this Government has the responsibility of proving the existence of such remedies.”6 The Respondent State makes reference to the legal instruments made available to the Commission, which illustrate that the rulings of the Military Court can be appealed. 64. Thus, according to the Respondent State, the Complainant can, in effect, submit an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice against the Military Court’s ruling, a remedy which the Victims did not explore in order to obtain redress for the violations they suffered. 65. At the end of a trial which lasted ten months, the Victims were acquitted and released by the Military Court. On the basis of this acquittal, the African Commission is of the view that the Respondent State in question had the opportunity, by its own means and within the framework of its own legal system, to remedy the wrongs caused to the Victims as a result of imprisoning them for Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme vs. Zambia, Communication 71/92, parag. 12. 6 14