42. During its 10th Extra-Ordinary Session, the African Commission took a decision on the Merits of the Communication and the Parties were accordingly notified. The Law on Admissibility The Complainants' Submissions on Admissibility 43. The Complainants submit that all the criteria of Article 56 of the African Charter are satisfied and that the Communication is Admissible. 44. The Complainants submit that they have complied with Article 56 (1) of the African Charter because the Victims in the Communication have been identified and their relevant details have been provided to the African Commission, along with the details of those individuals and organisations representing them. 45. The Complainants also submit that they comply with Article 56 (2) of the African Charter because the Communication is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) and with the African Charter. 46. Concerning Article 56 (3) of the African Charter, the Complainants submit that the Communication is presented in polite and respectful language. 47. The Complainants submit further that the Communication complies with Article 56 (4) of the African Charter because it is based on information provided by the Victims and not by media reports. 48. Concerning Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, the Complainants submit that investigations were not properly undertaken by the police which led to a decision not to prosecute from the Cairo PPO on 17 December 2005. The Complainants aver that the Victims reported the alleged incidences to the police after the alleged assault on the 25 May 2005, but the police was unwilling to interview potential witnesses, take down statements, or assist them in any way.2 49. The Complainants submit that three of the four Victims appealed to the Cairo PPO to prosecute the perpetrators, but the Appeals Court rejected the appeals on 1 February 2006. They also submit that the Fourth Victim lost her right of appeal for failing to lodge it within 10 days due to pressure and threats that she allegedly received. They state that all the Victims have been left with no further effective or available remedy. 50. The Complainants submit that available remedies in Egyptian Law are criminal or civil. They aver that none of the Victims pursued solely civil remedies, and two of them asked for temporary civil compensation as part of their criminal proceedings. They also submit that pursuing separate civil action is not necessary and that criminal remedy is the most appropriate for sexual violations and physical assaults allegations. 51. The Complainants refer to Sir Dawda K Jawara v. The Gambia, (the Jawara Case)3 to sustain that the rationale behind Article 56(5) of the African Charter is to provide the State concerned with an opportunity to remedy alleged violations through its domestic legal system, and that in the current case the Respondent State has been given an opportunity to investigate, prosecute and remedy the alleged violations. 52. They also refer to - Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan4 to argue that in cases where it is "impractical or undesirable" for the Complainants or Victims to seize the domestic courts, the requirement of local remedies should not be applied literally, and that domestic remedies must be effective and not subordinated to the discretionary power of public authorities. 53. Furthermore, the Complainants refer to similar requirements of exhaustion of local remedies in the context of the European Court of Human Rights (the European Court), where the exhaustion of all possible remedies within the criminal system does not require making another attempt to obtain redress by a civil action for damages.5 The Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 54. In its submission, the Respondent State argues that the Communication is inadmissible before the African Commission for two reasons. Firstly, that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies, and secondly, that there has been no violation of the provisions of the African Charter. 55. With regards to the exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State submits that the PPO issued a decision on 25 December 2005 ordering the police to stop the inquiry because there was no ground for criminal proceedings. It argues that this decision was justified by three reasons: firstly, the culprits had not been identified, secondly, the police officers accused of beating the alleged victims were not on the scene at the time, and thirdly the medical reports submitted by the victims were contradictory and could not lead to the identification of the culprits. 4