prolonged, unavailable, ineffective or insufficient, the consideration of the case by the Commission."” exhaustion rule will not bar 21.From this analysis of the jurisprudence of the Commission, the following exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of local remedy are remarkable. First, domestic remedies must be of “judicial nature”; second, domestic remedies must not be “unduly prolonged”; third, where there are “ouster” clauses domestic remedies are rendered unavailable; and, fourth, local remedies cannot be exhausted are a large number of potential victims of violations of human rights. 22.The Complainants have amply demonstrated that the Respondent where there State’s penal laws (Penal Code™ and Law to Combat Trafficking in Persons and Related Practices and to Protect Victims adopted by the Respondent State in 2005"°) proscribe forcing a child to beg.2° However, the Respondent State has made little efforts to enforce these provisions with a view to penalizing the marabouts who force talibes to beg. It is in record that, as of 2011 only 10 cases were brought to court resulting in nine convictions on marabouts. The Complaints have submitted that the highest actual duration of imprisonment for all conventions under the foregoing laws was one month imprisonment and the Committee is of the view that this avenue inefficient. 23.The Committee also finds the avenue to petition the Chief Prosecutor to bring a claim to court on behalf of the talibes victims of violations of their rights by marabouts in the daaras to be ineffective because the Chief Prosecutor's decision is made discretionary and in consultation with the Minister responsible for justice, which does not amount to a remedy that is judicial in nature. Another avenue that the Complainants also have indicated to be in place in the Respondent State is the requirement that only the victim talibes or someone directly affected by the alleged violations can bring cases in domestic courts. In practice, this would entail each of the estimated 100,000 talibes would bring their own claim in courts. The Committee concurs with Complainants’ submission that this avenue is “so impractical as to be virtually impossible”. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the Complainants should avail from the exceptions of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as there is no effective and sufficient remedy for the talibes. 24. In view of the forgoing reasons, during its 21st Ordinary Session, which was held 15 to 19 April 2013, admissibility Consideration the Committee conditions of as laid found Communications Complaint admissible. down the Communication and in as the to have Committee’s such, the fulfilled all the Guidelines Committee on declared the the "” Sir Dawda K. Jawara, op. cit, paras. 31-32. *® Law 65-60 of 21 July 1965. "| aw No. 2005-06 of Senegal. 20 articles 245 to 247(b) of the Penal Code prescribe a 3-6 month term of imprisonment for any person who allows a child to beg on his or her behalf. The Law to Combat Trafficking in Persons and Related Practices and to Protect Victims prescribes 5-10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of five to twenty million CFA francs for a person found guilty of forcing a child to beg. 7