been denied access to justice for the serious human rights violations which they had suffered. Respondent State’s Submission on Admissibility 64. In its submission on Admissibility, the Respondent State urges the African Commission to strike out the Communication as it has not complied with Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 65. The Respondent State avers that the Egyptian legal system grants the Victim the right to seek judicial remedy and to receive compensation for the harm he/she suffered. It states that the prosecutor had decided to drop charges due to the inability of identifying who the perpetrators where. The State argues that the Victims have the opportunity to reopen the investigation where there is new evidence or information. It states that it is clear that the Victims did not demand any compensation from the Egyptian judiciary and therefore, the submitted Communication is unacceptable because the local remedies were not exhausted according to Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 66. The Respondent State argues that the Egyptian General Prosecution Authority is a part of the judicial structure of the state and its members enjoy immunity and independence similar to judges. The Respondent argues that the General Prosecution Authority is the entity that was assigned to investigate and prosecute in the instant case. The Respondent State avers further that it is the authority that conducted the investigations and which later dropped the charges of premeditated murder and use of brutality due to lack of the elements of the crime as required by law. It avers that the investigations could not identify a person or persons who committed the crimes of unintentional murder and injury, premeditated vandalizing of properties of the Sudanese protestors or others. Such conclusion, it argues, led to the decision to suspend any criminal prosecution because the perpetrators are not identified but that the police had been instructed to continue investigations to identify the perpetrators. 67. The Respondent State argues that the investigations of the General Prosecution Authority concluded that the crimes of unintentional murder and injury, resisting the authorities, premeditated vandalizing of properties were 15