93. In his additional observations, the Complainant refers to previous jurisprudence of the Commission which found that these immunities are an impediment to initiating action against the NISS or police and that they render remedies ineffective and inadequate, as they sustain a culture of systemic impunity, rendering al possible remedies discretionary and extraordinary, referring also to jurisprudence of the Commission which held that "when a remedy is discretionary, extraordinary and of a non-judicial nature, the Complainants are not required to pursue it as part of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies" and that "it would be improper to insist on the Complainant seeking remedies from a source which does not operate impartially and has no obligation to decide according to legal principles". They further reiterate the decision of the Commission in a previous case that it is implausible to think that the heads of the police and NISS would lift these immunities. 94. It is a well-established principle of the Commission's jurisprudence that only those remedies which are "ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice" have to be exhausted. 23 The Commission, as mentioned above, has thus held that discretionary and extraordinary remedies do not have to be exhausted. In addition, the Commission as well as the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, have held that ordinary remedies do not include instances where the review of a decision is at the discretion of a court,24 where the Complainant has to request the Attorney General to prosecute or undertake private prosecution, 25 where there is a duty on the State to conduct criminal investigation and prosecution,26 or where an authority, such as the President has a discretion to grant a remedy. Nor is there a duty on the Complainant to submit cases to national commissions, even if they can grant remedies, such as a national human rights institution (NHRI), as they are "non-judicial institutions". 27 95. In previous decisions agajnst Sudan, where National Intelligence Security Service (NISS) members were immune from prosecution and disciplinary action under the National Security Act of 2010 in Sudan, and where private individuals -Interights, institute for Human Rights and Developme1tt in Africa, and Associnh"on Mauritanienne des Droits de l' Homme v Mauritania, 4 June 2004, para 27. Kennedy Owino Onyachi mtd Others v. United Republic ofTmzzania, App. No. 003/2015, Judgment of 28 September 2017, parn 56. 24 Communication 375/09 - Priscilla Njeri Echaria (represen ted by Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya 1111d J11tenzational Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v. Kenya, 7 November 2011, para 54; Alex Thomas v Republic of Tanzania, App. No.005/2013, Judgment on Merits, 20 November 2015, para 65. 25 Communication 245/02- Zimbabwe Hu111nn Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, 15 May 2006, para 70. 26 Communication 245/02- Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zinzbauwe, 15 May 2006, para 70. v Communication 221/98 - Alfred B. Cudjoe/ Ghana, 5 May 1999, ara ,l4. Communication 375/09 Priscilla Njeri Eclzarin (represented by Federation of Women Lnwye 1ya,;r;, ~ national Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v. Kenya , 7 November 2011, R ~ ~ffi.crm,'t,.&m ission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Rep11blic of Kenya, App. No. 006/2012, 26 • " 2017: .......,.......ci7 • Co~ unication 268/03: Ilesanmi v Nigeria, 11 May 2005, para 42. f1 ~ ft). r. ·~---~ 1 c;:,._ ~ rJ', 23 Communication 242/01 l I <t ~ g , ~ ,. ~ i\J", .! .s:,Q • ' '·=,7 -- ~ "' ~ .,o <,,,_ "v,.q ••RICA\NiQ'c. "'<.,<,/ j o.,_, ,...;)'? 1/ '-11: ET oE.S~ . .,,. 21 I P a g e