wrong it is alleged to have caused using its own internal legal system prior to the case being brought before an international body. This rule makes it possible to respect the sovereignty of the State concerned and avoid the use of the international body as a court of first instance. The African Commission consistently adopts a jurisprudential stance on the issue2. 49. In the Commission’s understanding, exhausting local remedies means that the author of the Communication and not the victim3 obtains a final decision from the highest body in the court hierarchy of the judicial system of the Respondent State.4 The Commission gives preference to remedies sought from the judiciary as opposed to those sought from administrative authorities or executive bodies.5 50. On the basis of its jurisprudence, the Commission considers that to have been exhausted, local remedies should necessarily be available, sufficient and effective6; that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment; that it is effective if it is capable of redressing the complaint; that it is sufficient if it offers a prospect of success.7 51. In this case, the Respondent State alleges the non-exhaustion of local remedies by the Complainant. It is therefore up to the Respondent State to prove that local remedies are available, sufficient and effective. The DRC argues that local remedies were not exhausted because the Complainant brought the matter before the Commission when the case was still pending before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the DRC. It is true that in the cases Kenya Human Rights Commission v. Kenya8 and Tsatsu 2See in this regard Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v. Zaïre (2000) AHRLR 74 (ACHPR 1995); Comité Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libértés v. Chad (2000) AHRLR 66 (ACHPR 1995); Degli and Others v. Togo (2000) AHRLR 317 (ACHPR 1995). 3 The Commission makes a distinction between the author of a Communication and the victim on whose behalf the Communication is submitted. The importance of this distinction lies in the identification of the person who has the obligation to exhaust local remedies. See in this regard its decision in the case of Article 19 v. Eritrea (2007) AHRLR 73 (ACHPR 2007) para. 64 4 Commission thus adopts the doctrinal position on the matter. See, for example, Desai Anuj, “The IranUnited States claims tribunal, first award of damages for a breach of the Algiers Declarations” 10 (1999) Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 237. 5 See Ilesanmi v. Nigeria – Communication 268/03 (2005) AHRLR 48 (ACHPR 2005). 6 See among others, Jawara v. The Gambia – Communication 147/95-149/96 (2000) RADH 107 (2000) para 31, Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea- Communication 250/02 (2003) AHRLR 84 (ACHPR 2003). See also Judgment of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission on the Velasquez Rodriguez Case (29 July 1988) Series C, No. 4 (1988). 7 Jawara v. The Gambia, para 31; Article 19 v. Eritrea para 46. 8 (2000) AHRLR 133 (ACHPR 1995). 8