based on information circulated by the media; it has not been considered according to another investigation, procedure or international regulation. 15.The Complainants submit that exhaustion of local remedy in this matter is ‘unnecessary considering the best interests of the number of children whose rights are being violated’ relying on a decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR/the Commission) in African Institute for Human Rights and Development v Guinea.’ In the cited Decision, the Commission held that a local remedy could not be exhausted given the number of potential victims who were in the region since it would be impractical for them to approach the courts. The Complainants are of the view that international law requires that the exhaustion of domestic remedies should only be in respect of those that are available, effective and adequate. And the Complainants argue that there is no effective judicial remedy for the talibes insofar as actio popularis in the Respondent State’s courts is not in favour of the talibes as they do not have standing to do so. In addition, the Complainants have invoked the jurisprudence of the Commission which reveals that in cases of “serious and massive violations”, local remedies need not be exhausted.® In this case, it is the Complainants’ submission that the failure by the Respondent State to protect “so many” children on the streets in the State’s major cities where they suffer “egregious violations” of their rights enshrined in the Charter for so many years amount to “serious and massive violations”. ACERWC’s analysis and decision on admissibility 16.The Committee notes that the Complainants are non-governmental organizations recognized by the African Union through the Commission; and are doing so on behalf of victim talibes in the Respondent State and therefore can be the authors of the Communication. 17.The Committee also notes that the Complainants have satisfied the conditions and requirement as to form as laid down in Chapter 2 Article 1(I) of the Committee’s Communication Guidelines, i.e. the communication explicitly states the name of the authors, is well written and concerns a State Party to the Charter. 18.In the matter of content of the Communication, the Committee agrees that the communication is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Charter as it concerns violations of the provisions of the Charter. The Committee notes the Commission's Decision in Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe’ to the effect that to be compatible with the Charter, the communication has only got to 7 (2004) ACHRLR 57 (ACHPR 2004) para 34. ® See for instance Organisation Mondiale contre la Democrates, Commission Internationale de Juristes, Rwanda (1996) (No's. 27/89-46/91-99/93) para 18. ° Communication No. 245/2002 ACHPR. Torture, Union Association Interafricaine Internationale des droits des Juristes de I'Homme v