exhausting them as these remedies would be ineffective and/or their exhaustion would be „undesirable‟. This, according to the Complainants, is because the process of exhaustion of local remedies has been unduly prolonged, and the reasons for the delays are all attributable to the Respondent State.12 They therefore urge the Commission to follow its jurisprudence in Institute for Human and Development in Africa (on behalf of Collectif des Veuves et Ayants droits)/Mauritania13 where it held that the duty on the Complainant to pursue legal avenues at the national level may be waived if it is „impractical‟14 or „undesirable‟ for the Complainant to do so15. 100. In respect of Article 56(7) which requires that Communications must not deal with cases which have been settled in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (UN), or the Charter of the OAU (now AU) or the provisions of the African Charter; the Complainants note the argument of the Respondent that the present Communication has been settled by another international organ, namely the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), by its Decisions Nos. 45/1992 and 33/1993.16 The Complainants however argue that there is no overlap between the complaint submitted to the UNWGAD and the present Communication. They argue that the substance of the present Communication varies with the one dealt with by the UNWGAD, as do the victims, the facts making up the present Communication and the period over which the alleged violations have been committed. 101. They note specifically that the complaint to the UNWGAD was submitted and decided before the commencement of the trial of the Dergue Officials, and therefore did not cover the subsequent period of trial which the present Communication is dealing with. They also note that the complaint to the UNWGAD was concerned solely with five members of the Dergue, and therefore does not cover the over 106 Dergue Officials in respect of whom the present Communication has been submitted before the Commission. Hence, they submit that the present Communication does not deal with any settled matter. They further argue that for the matter to have been settled there should have been a decision on the merits complained of herein, which is not the case. In support of this argument, they cite the Commission‟s decision 12 The reasons for this submission are detailed in para 32 of Complainants‟ submission on Admissibility. 13 Communications 164/97 and 196/97. 14 They cite Communication 215/91 – Malawi African Association and Others/ Mauritania; Communication 61/91 – Amnesty International/Mauritania, 98/93 – Mme Sarr Diop, Union Interafricaine des Droit de l’Homme et RADDHO/Mauritania. 15 Ibid. 16 Para 71 above and paras 33 – 42 of the State and Complainants‟ submission on admissibility. 19