Additionally, the Complainants stated in the complaint that the 'trial of the victim was before a Special court, not the competent court'. However, arguments and evidence have not been adduced by the Complainants to establish how the court which tried the victim was a "special court and not a competent court." 44. Whereas the Complainants did not provide information on the judicial system in the Respondent State, the Commission takes note of the following: "the common court system in Egypt is made up of three tiers: courts of first instance, courts of appeal, and the Court of Cassation. "10 Further, the Court of Cassation is the supreme court of the common court system which has jurisdiction to review verdicts handed down by the courts of appeal, though its reviews are limited to matters of law, as stipulated in Articles 2 to 5 of the Judicial Authority Law of the Arab Republic of Egypt."ll /I 45. Accordingly, in order to be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies in the Respondent State, the Commission is of the view that the Complainants should have adduced evidence providing information on the victim's case being appealed, to the Court of Appeal and thereafter to the Court of Cassation. However, the Commission observes that the Complainants did not provide information on whether the victim sought remedy from the highest and final Court in the Respondent State. Rather, the Complainants averred that there is no opportunity for national justice in Egypt if the judiciary in Egypt has collapsed by subduing itself to the military rulers" leading the country. The Commission further observes that evidence has not been adduced to buttress this assertion of the Complainants. II 46. To this end, the Commission notes that it is incumbent on the Complainants to provide some evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies. In Mr. Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe, the Commission held that " ... the mere fact that a domestic remedy is inconvenient or unattractive, or does not produce a result favorable to the petitioner does not, in it, demonstrate the lack of exhaustion of all effective remedies.F Furthermore, in Article 19 v. Eritrea the Commission held that it is incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies."13 II 47. In the present Communication, in light of the absence of information on whether the victim obtained a final decision from the highest court to which recourse is available in the Respondent State, in addition to the unsubstantiated assertion of the Complainants that there is no opportunity for national justice in Egypt, the African Commission finds that the requirement of the exhaustion of local remedies, as required in Article 56(5), has not been met. 10 Egypt's Court System 101, https://timep.orQ./transitional-i Llstice-proiect/egypts-collrt-svstem-I 0 1/ Ilid . Communication 307/05: Mr. Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe (2007) ACHPR, para 84 13 Communication 275/03: Article 19 v. Eritrea (2007) ACHPR, para 6~<<-;:;:;?:~ 12 8 //.,: .» ~;~;,: •. :;; ·.:;L". .: \ ;.- (:~;.:~:".;!\ \';\ \ ",,\: _:)J:'_) / ..... ---