remedies due to the failure by the Respondent State to activate them by considering the alleged complaints. 52. The Commission is of the view that remedies can actually exist legally and in practice without necessarily being accessible to a Complainant. There is therefore the need to make a distinction between the existence and availability of local remedies. In this case, the Respondent State denies having received any petition from the Complainant whereas the latter provides supporting documents to prove that she filed several complaints which have not been acted upon. As such, the criterion of availability will mainly be assessed in the light of accessibility and in particular the possibility of making local remedies available. 53. Regarding accessibility as a result of failure on the part of the Respondent State, the Commission decided in the case of Article 19 v. Eritrea that “the local remedies rule is not rigid. It does not apply if recourse to local remedies is made impossible.”5 In the case of Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia, the Commission further stresses that a remedy is considered to be available if it is “accessible and within reach”.6 It emerges that the failure by the Respondent State and its authorities to activate such remedies renders them unavailable. In the present case, Cameroon considers that remedies were accessible and available. The Respondent State contends that the Complainant did not follow the necessary formalities and also did not make enough effort to attempt to exhaust local remedies. 54. With regard to the formalities for seizure which the Respondent State argues, under Cameroonian law it appears that there is no provision in the procedure codes which prohibits seizure of the judicial authorities by correspondence. The same laws do not also make it mandatory the use of a representative or any form that a petition should take for a case to be heard in court. In fact, in addition to direct referral provided for in Section 135(1) (b) of the Cameroon Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 135(1) (a) of the Code stipulates that: “matters shall be brought to the State Counsel either by way of written information, a written or oral complaint or a written report by a competent authority”.7 In this regard, Cameroon has not provided the Commission with evidence that the formalities and means of seizure used by the Complainant are prohibited by the relevant laws or fail to comply with these laws. 55. Alternatives such as claims for damages or direct summons, which Cameroon seems to fault the Complainant for failing to explore, are nothing other than Article 19 v. Eritrea Communication 275/03 (2007) AHRLR 73 (ACHPR 2007) para 48. Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia Communication 299/05 (2006) AHRLR 97 (ACHPR 2006). 7 Cameroon Code of Criminal Procedure (27 July 2005). 5 6 11