Complainant and his clientele. However, the complainant does not refer to the content of this ruling in making his argument, merely referring the Commission to the relevant pages of the annexes. Unfortunately, the referenced pages of the evidence submitted do not contain the referenced matter, and the Commission was thus not able to review the Vetting Board ruling. The Complainant further argues that the failure of the Vetting board to remove ‘recalcitrant judges’ whom he had named, exposes him “to revenge, retribution and retaliation” by judicial officers and their friends for having exposed their “official wrongdoings.” This is a very strong assertion, which is not backed up by arguments or.evidence, and the Commission thus cannot make a finding of unavailability, ray, or effectiveness of local remedies based on this statement. 48. The second argument made by the Compl inantin order to support his allegation that there is general mistrust and lack of p: fessional respect between himself and the judiciary and that there are artificial impediments being placed’on his way, is through listing examples of ways in which he alleges that the Kenyan judiciary has, through various interactions that he had with them, denied him effective local judicial remedies. The Commission has held in its jurisprudence that “it is incumbent on every complainant to takevalhnecessary steps to r atleast attempt the exhaustion of, local remedies. It is not enough for the complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated or past incidences”.!” For nineteen (19) of the twenty-seven (27) allegations of ways in which the State structures attempt to deny him remedies, there is no evidence whatsoever provided to support the assertions. These allegations are also phrased in a very general manner, such as the claim that the Complainant is subjected to “massive deliberate selective or differential ‘application of the Rule of Law”. Such assertions do not meet the Commission's specificity Tequirements and thus do not allow the Commission to investigate the claims. 1 49. With regard to another of the twenty-seven (27) allegations, namely the reference to ‘threatening and intimidating your humble petitioner [without any lawful basis] with arrest and imprisonment’, the judge who ordered this is named, thereby giving a clear indication that this was an isolated incident before a specific judge. For a further five allegations the Complainant refers the Commission to specific pages of the annexes, which references do not correlate with the annexes, and thus the Commission is not able to rely on any evidence in this regard in coming to its finding. 7 Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia para 58. '8 See Communication 104/94, 109/94 and 126/94 Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyer; and Others, paras 5-6. 11