97. Regarding the possibility for the original complainants to have seised the Respondent's National Human Rights Commission with the alleged violations , the Court notes that, the said Commission does not have any judicial powers. The functions of its national human rights commission are to resolve conflicts by fostering reconciliation and issuing recommendations to appropriate state organs. 10 This Court has consistently held that for purpose of exhaustion of local remedies, available domestic remedies shall be judicial. 11 In the instant case, the remedy the Respondent is requesting the Applicant to exhaust, that is, procedures before the National Human Rights Commission , is not judicial. 12 98. In view of the above, the Court rules that the Application meets the requirements under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules. C. Compliance with Rule 40(2), 40 (3), 40 (4), 40 (6) and 40 (7) of the Rules 99. The Court notes that the issue of compliance with the above-mentioned Rules is not in contention and nothing in the Parties' submissions indicates that they have not been complied with . The Court therefore holds that the requirements in those provisions have been met. 100. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that this Application fulfils all admissibility requirements in terms of Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules and declares the Application admissible. VII. 101. ON THE MERITS In its Application , the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 17(2) and (3), 21 and 22 of the Charter. Given the nature of the subject matter of the application, the Court will commence with the alleged violation of Article 14, then examine articles 2, 4, 8, 14, 17(2) and (3), 21,22 and 1. 10 See Section 3 of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission Act. , , See Mohamed Abubal<ari Case paragraphs. 66 to70. 12 Mohamed Abubal<ari Case paragraph 64; Alex Thomas Case, paragraph 64 and Christopher Mtil<i/a Case, paragraph 82.3. 28