84. The question of the finality of the decision of the SAC is not contested by the Respondent State. The latter’s submissions rather focus on how the decisions given by the Administrative Judicial Court on 29 January 2008 and subsequent decisions made by the Ministry of Interior to amend the relevant law, can remedy the issues raised by the Complainants. Based on this fact the Respondent State argues that the Complaint should not be admitted as the subject of the Complaint is now over. 85. In this regard as the jurisprudence of international human rights adjudicatory bodies including that of the Commission show, when some facts/claims are uncontested by the State concerned, the decision on the facts should be decided as provided by the Complainant.4 86. In the present Communication, since the finality and non-appealability of the decisions of the SAC or the procedure followed by the Complainants has never been challenged by the Respondent State, the Commission takes the facts provided by the Complainant as given and hence rules that the SAC’s decision in the Ezzat case is final and cannot be appealed before any other court in the Respondent State. 87. Therefore, the Commission finds that all the local remedies available at the time were exhausted by the Complainants and hence the Complaint is in line with Article 56(5) of the Charter. 88. The argument raised by the Respondent State as to whether the later developments (that is the 29 January 2008 decision of the Administrative Judicial Court and the subsequent decisions by the Ministry of Interior to amend the relevant law) have effectively remedied the complaint raised by the Complainants has been duly noted by the Commission. However, the Commission would like to underscore that the local remedies that any Complainant is required to exhaust under Article 56(5) of the Charter are only the ones that were available, effective and sufficient in the State concerned by the time the alleged violation(s) occurred. 89. In the case at hand, as indicated above, the Complainants have exhausted all the local remedies that were available at the time and thus have met the requirements under Article 56(5). So, at this stage further looking into whether the later developments have remedied the present complaint or not would jump the gun to the Merits of the case. Accordingly, the Commission will deal with the issue at the appropriate stage and in the next few paragraphs the Commission continues to considering the compliance or otherwise of the remaining two requirements of Admissibility under Article 56 of the Charter. Communications 25/89,47/90,56/91,89/93 joined - Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (2000) para 40 and Zegveld and Others v Eritrea (2003) para 46. 4 13