needing to wait for the final result of the court proceeding.18 The Inter-American Human Rights Court has held that a case that has taken 5 years or more since the initial process can result in exemption of the requirement of local remedies.19 The Committee is cognizant of the fact that there is no fixed amount of years to say that a local remedy is unduly prolonged, rather it is decided on a case-by-case basis giving due regard to the rights of children at stake. The Committee, while drawing inspiration from the above-mentioned cases, is in no way attempting to prescribe a definitive amount of time for what needs to be considered as an ‘unduly prolonged local remedy’. It is the view of the Committee that the amount of time and the nature of the right invoked along with the best interests of the child should determine whether a local remedy is unduly prolonged or not. 19. In the current Communication, the Committee notes that the domestic remedy has taken over 7 years in total and the appeal has taken 2 years without the Court fixing a date for a hearing of the case. Given the time that has lapsed during the consideration of the case by the High Court and the rights of children at stake, the Complainants should no more be subjected to wait for the decision of the Court of Appeal whose proceeding so far has not demonstrated to be any faster. The right to education that is being alleged to have been violated is an essential right for children, which has a long-lasting effect on the well-being of children. Education determines the future of children and a domestic proceeding that is prolonged on such fundamental right should not be regarded as a remedy that should be sought till the end process. The Committee, therefore, holds the view that the domestic remedy is unduly prolonged. 20. The Committee does not find the argument of the Respondent State acceptable where it relies on previous cases of the Committee namely Ahmed Bassiouny v Arab Republic of Egypt and Sohaib Emad v Arab Republic of Egypt in arguing that local remedies are effective. The Committee would like to differentiate between the case at hand and the abovementioned two cases invoked by the Respondent State. Both in the Ahmed Bassiouny and the Sohaib Emad cases the Committee declined the communication as the Complainants were anticipating the ineffectiveness of the local remedy by relying on previous cases or merely casting doubts without trying to exhaust any remedy at the local level.20 However, in the present case, the Committee notes that the Complainants have attempted to engage the domestic courts and waited for 5 years to get a decision from the High Court, and appealed to the Court of Appeal which took a long time to fix the hearing date. Such practices entail that the domestic remedy is proved to be unduly prolonged while the State has been given ample time to address the violation. Hence, it is the view of the Committee that the Complainants' argument is not based on mere anticipation, but rather on proven records of unduly prolonged domestic proceedings. The Committee reiterates, that 18 HRC, Communication 1085/2002, Louisa Bousroual (on behalf of Salah Saker) v Algeria (15 March 2006), para 8.3. 19 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Genie-Lacayo v. Nicaragua, Merits, para 81; IACtHR, Las Palmeras v. Colom-bia, preliminary objections, para 38. 20 ACERWC, Communication No 008/Com/002/2016, Sohaib Emad v Arab Republic of Egypt, (2017) para 18; ACERWC, Communication No 009/Com/001/2016, Ahmed Bassiouny v Arab Republic of Egypt, (2017) para 24 and 30. JN 10