79. The Court observes that the Respondent State’s objection herein is twofold, firstly, that the PWA could have filed individual cases and secondly, that the Applicants could have assisted the PWA in filing cases before the national courts. 80. On the Respondent State’s claim that PWA could have filed individual suits before domestic courts in respect of the violations alleged in the present Application, the Court reiterates the Commission’s communication in Article 19 v. Eritrea,22 that: where the Communication reveals serious and massive violations of human rights, it cannot hold the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is impracticable or undesirable for the complainants to seize the domestic courts in respect of each individual complaints. 81. The Commission further observed that, “this is the case where there are a large number of victims and due to the seriousness of the human rights situation and the large number of people involved, such remedies as might theoretically exist in the domestic courts are as a practical matter unavailable”.23 82. The Court observes that the Respondent State has enumerated “mechanisms” to demonstrate that its local remedies were available, effective and sufficient, however, it has done so in abstracto without detailing specific instances where PWA have relied on the remedies and were able to remedy the violations of their rights. 83. With regard to the effectiveness of the remedies in the Respondent State regarding a case concerning the rights of a PWA, the Court notes the finding of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as “RPD Committee”) as follows:24 22 ACHPR, Communication No. 275/2003, Article 19 v. Eritrea, § 71. Ibid. 24 UNCRPD, X v. Tanzania, CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014. 23 21