shared with other branches of the service: the office has no mandate to initiate investigations or legal action. 44. In relation to the personal risk that the Complainants took when they made arrangements to leave the country, they aver that the official government media centre (the Sudanese Media Centre) issued a public statement in March alleging that the Complainants were witnesses for the ICC, and noting that the then State Minister at the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmed Haroun, had declared that the humanitarian organization which had allegedly assisted the three individuals to travel to the Hague as witnesses had transcended its mandate and engaged in activities harmful to the country's security. 11 African Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 45. Article 56 of the Charter provides seven admissibility requirements which need to be cumulatively fulfilled before a Communication is declared Admissible. In the present Communication, the Respondent State contests the fulfillment of only one of the seven Admissibility requirements - exhaustion of local remedies. Accordingly, the assumption here is that the Respondent State agrees that the six other requirements have been fulfilled. 46. After carefully studying the submissions of the Complainants, the African Commission is also convinced that the Communication does meet the other six Admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter. 47. The Commission will therefore proceed to decide as to whether the Complainants have met the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as provided under Article 56(5) of the Charter. 48. The Complainants contend that they were not able to exhaust local remedies because the domestic remedies were not available, effective and sufficient. It is in light of this submission that the African Commission will proceed to determine on the availability, effectiveness and sufficiency of Sudanese local remedies to the Complainants. 49. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the African Commission Complainants are required to exhaust local remedies only if the local remedies are available, effective and sufficient. A local remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint 12 50. In the present Communication, the Complainants contend that they were not able to pursue remedies in Sudan personally because they faced a genuine risk of being subjected to further serious violations if they decided to return to Sudan, and that the same risk applies to anyone pursuing a complaint on their behalf. The Respondent State on the other hand denies the allegations as baseless as according to the State the Complainants could have taken their cases to the Supreme Court, which closely monitors the situation of detainees and also receives complaints from detainees. Moreover, the Respondent State contends that the Criminal Procedure Act of 1991, the NISS Act of 2012, and the Interim National Constitution of 2005 provide for additional available remedies for the Complainants. 51. The African Commission is of the view that for the Complainants to be able to file their complaint before the Supreme Court while they were in detention, they need to be in touch with their lawyers, but there is no indication that the Complainants had any contact with their lawyers or even families or had been afforded the opportunity to contact their lawyers. The Respondent State has not either produced any record or proof to show that the Supreme Court was closely monitoring their situation. If the Supreme Court had closely monitored the situation as it is supposed to then it should at least have a record of when, how, why and where they were detained, and the conditions under which they were detained, interrogated and treated. However, there is no proof adduced by the Respondent State to this effect. In the absence of this crucial information, it is only logical to conclude that the Supreme Court did not monitor the situation of the Complainants. 6