7. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by the States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations or the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter. 37. In this Communication, the parties agree that all the conditions prescribed in Article 56 have been met except the one which prohibits the use of information based exclusively on the media, and the condition of the exhaustion of local remedies. Consequently, the Commissions consideration of the admissibility of the Communication will focus mainly on finding out if these two conditions have been met. 38. On the issue of respect for the provisions of Article 56(3) of the Charter, while the Complainants assert the Communication is based on actual facts, the Respondent State argues that the information presented is a collection of media reports. 39. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Complainants do not refer to media sources in their submissions. The requests put forward in their submissions are supported by legal texts and judicial rulings from authorities of the Respondent State. For instance, this applies to the capital punishments delivered by the Court Martial, the legality of which originates, among others, from Executive Order No 019 of 23 August 1997 establishing Military Courts and the Executive Decision on the Organization of the Judicial System establishing the Rules of Procedure of Courts, Tribunals and Public Prosecutors Offices. 40. By examining the information in the submissions of the Complainants, the Commission is convinced that by presenting proof of the capital punishments handed down to the victims and the circumstances relating to their imposition, the Complainants did not limit themselves exclusively to information from media sources. If it had been otherwise, the claims of the Respondent State made on the basis of the same information as those of the Complainants would also not be received. By the way, the Commission notes that the Communication is consistent with the requirements of Article 56(3) of the Charter. 41. With regard to the respect for the provisions of Article 56(5) of the Charter, the Respondent State considers that the Communication should be declared inadmissible as the Complainants have failed to exhaust an existing remedy. Furthermore, the State of Rwanda contends that the complaints lodged in the Communication had been settled by the national authorities. 42. The analysis of the arguments presented on this point shows the Commission that none of the parties disputes the fact that the persons identified in the Communication as victims were tried and sentenced by a judicial institution of the Respondent State (the Military Court) the rulings of which cannot be appealed against. 43. That such a fact has been established does not necessarily lead the Commission to set aside the submissions of the Respondent State according to which Article 175 of Decree 084/2002 of 2 August 2002 provides a remedy to the effect that the Public Prosecutors Office has power to apply for pardon for convicted persons, in this case the victims in this Communication. However, the Commission considers that the remedy provided in this particular circumstance is not jurisdictional and that its implementation is dependent on the discretion of public authorities. Such remedies do not meet the requirements established by the Commissions jurisprudence which considers that remedies, the exhaustion of which is required of the Complainant, are mainly judicial or jurisdictional. The decision of the Commission in Cudjoe v. Ghana case clearly illustrates this position. 5 44. On another aspect of the submission seeking to establish the non-exhaustion of local remedies to the Commission, the Respondent State argues about the existence of an alternative remedy, in this case a presidential pardon set out under an Executive Order 084/2002 issued by the Head of State. To tackle this issue, the Commission recalls that the local remedies, the exhaustion of which is required from the Complainant, must meet the criteria of being available , effective and sufficient as seen in Jawara v. The Gambia6 In this case, the Commission held that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 7 The Commission considers that this is actually not the case in this particular Communication because the remedy set out in Article 175 of Executive Order No. 6