declare the communication admissible based on this argument. If a remedy has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without trying to avail oneself of them, will simply not sway this Commission. 59. The Complainant also argue[s] that the violations alleged are serious and involve a large number of people and should be declare admissible as the African Commission cannot hold the requirements of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is impracticable or undesirable for the Complainant to seize the domestic courts in the case of each violation. In the 54.91-61.91-98.93-164.97_196.97-210.98 case18 , for example, this Commission observed that [t]he gravity of the human rights situation in Mauritania and the great number of victims involved render[ed] the channels of remedy unavailable in practical terms, and, according to the terms of the Charter, their process [was] 'unduly prolonged'. In like manner, the Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa / Sudan, Paragraph 32 case 19 involved the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of many Sudanese citizens after the coup of 30th July 1989. The alleged acts of torture included forcing detainees into cells measuring 1.8 metres wide and 1 metre deep, deliberately flooding the cells, frequently banging on the doors to prevent detainees from lying down, forcing them to face mock executions, and prohibiting them from bathing or washing. Other acts of torture included burning detainees with cigarettes, binding them with ropes to cut off circulation, and beating them with sticks until their bodies were severely lacerated and then treating the resulting wounds with acid. After the coup, the Sudanese government promulgated a decree that suspended the jurisdiction of the regular courts in favour of special tribunals with respect to any action taken in applying the decree. It also outlawed the taking of any legal action against the decree. These measures, plus the "seriousness of the human rights situation in Sudan and the great numbers of people involved," the Commission concluded, "render[ed] such remedies unavailable in fact." 20 60. Thus, in cases of massive violations, the state will be presumed to have notice of the violations within its territory and the State is expected to act accordingly to deal with whatever human rights violations. The pervasiveness of these violations dispenses with the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, especially where the state took no steps to prevent or stop them. 21 61. The above cases must however be distinguished from the present case which involves one single incident that took place for a short period of time. The Respondent State has indicated the measures it took to deal with the situation and the legal proceedings being undertaken by those alleged to have committed human rights violations during the incident. By establishing the Gambella Commission of Inquiry and indicting alleged human rights perpetrators, the state, albeit under international pressure, demonstrated that it was not indifferent to the alleged human rights violations that took place in the area and in the view of this Commission could be said to have exercised due diligence. 62. This Commission has also held in many instances that domestic remedies have not been exhausted if a case that includes the subject matter of the petition before it is still pending before the national courts. In 45.90, 22 the African Commission declined to consider a communication with respect to which a claim had been filed but not yet settled by the courts of the Respondent State. In the present communication, the Respondent State indicates that the matter is still pending before its courts and attached a list of cases still pending before the Federal Circuit Court in relation with the Gambella incident. The list provided the names of the suspects, file number of their cases, previous and future dates of adjournments. The Complainant does not deny this process is going on. In the view of this Commission, it does not matter whether the cases still pending before the courts have been brought by the Complainant or the state. The underlying question is whether the case is a subject matter of the proceedings before the African Commission and whether it is aimed at granting the same relief the Complainant is seeking before this Commission. As long as a case still pending before a domestic court is a subject matter of the petition before this Commission, and as long as this Commission believes the relief sought can be obtained locally, it will decline to entertain the case. It is the view of this Commission that the present communication23 is still pending before the courts of the Respondent State and therefore does not meet the requirements under Article 56(5). Holding For the above reasons, the African Commission declares communication 299/05 Anuak Justice 8