proceedings. The only proceedings referred to in the Communication were the ones which had been initiated against the President of the Republic of Angola, on the basis of a corruption report submitted to the Office of the Attorney General which declined to hear the matter for lack of jurisdiction. According to the Respondent State, the Victim as a jurist knew fully well the procedure to follow in such cases but failed to do so. 49. On the basis of the above, the Respondent State urges the Commission to dismiss the Communication. Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility 50. The Admissibility of Communications submitted to the Commission under Article 55 of the African Charter is governed by the seven requirements set out in Article 56 of the Charter. Article 56 comprises seven requirements which must be cumulatively complied with for a Communication to be admissible. 51. From the above submissions of the parties, it appears that the requirements under subsections (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) and (7) of Article 56 raise no contentious issues. The Commission after carefully examining the facts and submissions considers that the requirements under the above provisions have been complied with. 52. Regarding the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56 (5) of the Charter, the rationale of this provision has been addressed by the Commission in several of its decisions. In Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire3 and Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l'Homme v Zambia4 the Commission stated that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is founded on the principle that a government should have notice of human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violations before being called before an international body. 53. In the present Communication, the Complainant submits that local remedies were ineffective and insufficient in respect of the allegations of harassment, intimidation, vandalism and death threats against the Victim, and unavailable in respect of the allegations concerning the failure of the Respondent State to investigate allegations of corruption and embezzlement against the President of the Republic of Angola. The Complainant has further submitted that the climate of fear existing in the country during that particular election period and the failure of the government to respond effectively supports the argument that there is no effective domestic remedy available to address the Victim's complaints 54. The Respondent State on the other hand contends that despite the shortcomings of the Angolan judicial system, it is capable of remedying the violations complained of. It contests, for lack of evidence, the Victim's claims that Angolan authorities failed to investigate his allegations of harassment, intimidation, vandalism and threats during the period leading up to the elections. It also argues that the Victim failed to follow the required procedure under domestic to lodge his complaint regarding allegations of embezzlement by the President of Angola. 55. As already outlined above, the rationale for requiring Complainants to exhaust local remedies is to afford the concerned State an opportunity to receive notice of an alleged violation of rights in its jurisdiction and to remedy same. In the present Communication, the Complainants have submitted that allegations of harassment, intimidation, vandalism and death threats directed at the victim were brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. The Respondent State contests the fact that the violations complained of were brought to its notice which made it impossible for it to take measures to remedy the violations. 56. The Commission notes that the Complainant has not provided any evidence in support of its assertions that it reported the violations to the authorities of the Respondent State. The Respondent State has explained that whenever legal proceedings are instituted, a case is automatically filed, a relevant number allocated and the nature of the crime indicated. This fact is not contested by the Complainant. The Commission notes further that no copy of a complaint that was purportedly submitted by the Victim to any of the authorities has for example been submitted as an element of proof. Without such proof, the Commission is compelled to agree with the Respondent State that the alleged violations were not brought to its notice and it was therefore not in a position to take any action to remedy the violations. 57. The Complainant has also submitted that any local remedies that might have been available were ineffective and insufficient in the Victim's circumstances due to the general atmosphere of fear that characterised the election period and the death threats directed at the Victim. The Respondent State has submitted that its judicial system is capable of entertaining any complaints brought before it. 58. The Commission notes that the Complainants have in their submissions indicated that the Victim is a prominent lawyer in Angola who has in many occasions successfully represented clients in Court. Even if this is not determinative of the effectiveness of the domestic judicial instances in this particular case on 6