h r) 6�ttE� p.CHPJI Human and Peoples' Rights Human R;ghts 00, Collective Respons,bility explicitly provides for urgent hearings, requiring the applicant to submit a certificate of urgency signed by either the applicant or their legal representative. This certificate must be supported by an affidavit presenting the grounds upon which the applicant relies to establish the necessity for an expedited review. The Commission believes that the Certificate of Delay issued by the High Court could have served as a substantiating document to bolster the Complainant's case for urgency. 70. Additionally, it is noteworthy that even when the Court is on vacation when filing the appeal, Rule 47(4) of the same Rules permits urgent applications to be considered during both term and vacation periods. 71. Regrettably, it is evident that the Complainant did not seize the opportunity to make use of this provision and pursue an expedited appeal despite the availability of Rule 47(1) of the 2010 Rules of the Court of Appeal. 72. This Commission has established that merely asserting the unavailability of local remedies is insufficient; it must be demonstrated that genuine efforts were made to exhaust them before deeming them futile. This principle was exemplified in the case of Gusman Manjang v The Gambia, 14 where the Complainant argued that local remedies were severely limited and unlikely to be effective. However, the Commission deemed the lack of effort inexcusable, making the Communication inadmissible. A similar principle was applied in Ceesay v The Gambia,15 where the absence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies led to the dismissal of the claim. Therefore, it is crucial to genuinely "attempt" to exhaust local remedies. 73. In light of the above observations and analysis, the Commission finds that the conditions of Article 56 (5) have not been satisfied. 74. Article 56(6) of the African Charter provides that Communications should be 'submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter. ' 75. As discussed in the paragraphs above, the Commission has determined that the Complainant failed to exhaust local remedies. When local remedies have not been exhausted, Complainants may submit to the Commissio,r-i-� ,mlnri� "o -" · o'"' reasonable time from when they realized that local remedies we;re_,N�alV' a.1Toble �o-<0 can be messeli'/ '-:, 2DID http:/ /kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/ kenyalex/sublegview.xql?subleg=CAP. %209. '' \ n � ... O v, 14 Communica on. No. 131/ 94- Ousman Manjang v The Gambia, para 1 � lJ/>. 11.u� \ "' ,, _ \.,'\,. "\ 15 Communication. No. 86/93 Ceesay v The Gambia ' ·ls,,, 0 �;;, ,.'",, 4FRtCJ.' <_V . ,,u,., 15 1...0!'':,fl {�, .'/f An Orgon o( the African /i_. �u nion . t',n1.- / 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 OS 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org ht-tnr-1,rhnr ,,, ;..,t/("') 0 D