95. It is, therefore, the Commission’s view that in the above circumstances, it is impossible to identify all the Victims and, given the vast and varied scope of the violations alleged, it would be impractical to expect the Victims to exhaust local remedies, thereby impeding the Victims from approaching the courts under those circumstances. This aligns with the Commission’s jurisprudence in African Institute for Human Rights and Development v. Guinea, wherein 5,000 Sierra Leone refugees were detained, and an unknown additional portion of 300,000 Sierra Leone refugees also experienced violations. The Commission found that “an impractical number of potential plaintiffs would result in the domestic court system becoming severely overburdened if even a slight majority of victims chose to pursue legal redress.”35 The Communication was declared admissible because it fell under an exception that exhaustion was impractical due to the large number of victims. 96. Ultimately, recalling its jurisprudence in previous cases36 and juxtaposing with the circumstances in the present Communication, the Commission is inclined and holds that the present Communication falls within the category of communications where exceptions to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies should apply, as it would be unreasonable to expect the Victims to pursue local remedies deemed to only exist in theory and not in practice. 97. On the second point, the Complainants alleged that the Victims cannot resort to domestic remedies due to general fear of persecution. The Complainants alleged that following the 2015 elections, clashes between protesters and Government authorities in the Respondent State resulted in the alleged deaths of hundreds of people, while others were allegedly intimidated, arrested, detained, persecuted, and harassed. Additionally, the Complainants stated that in the 2015 electoral period, Ethiopians could not freely publish their opinions critical of the Government, publicly demonstrate, or hold their elected representatives accountable without being subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, or harassment.37 Communication No. 249/02: Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Guinea (2004) ACHPR, para 34. 36 Communication Nos 48/09, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 (1999); Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, para 30; Comm. No. 338/07 (2010) Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria, para 67; Communication Nos. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93 (1995) Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v. Zaire; Communication No. 249/02: Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Guinea 37 See summary of Complaint. 35 ~ 17 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/