State particularly refers to Article 35 of the CPA which governs immunities of members of the NISS and gives the Director of Security Service the ultimate power and discretion to decide whether to waive immunity or not. 53. The Complainant on the other hand, argues that the Victim could not approach the courts mentioned by the Respondent State for the following reasons: 1. Decree No. 2 of June 1989;20 2. The prevailing political situation in Sudan in the 90s; 3. The CPA of 1991.21 54. Having regard to the foregoing, the Commission concurs with the Complainant's argument that the political situation in Sudan and Decree No. 2 of June 1989 impeded the Victim's approach to the courts mentioned by the Respondent State due to the restrictions imposed by the Decree, especially the state of emergency. This was also the Commission's position in The Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan,22 where it reasoned that the political situation at the time did not permit the Victim to exhaust local remedies because application of law was made difficult due to the state of emergency. According to the Commission in the said case, -It is reasonable to assume that not only will the procedure of local remedies be unduly prolonged, but also that it will yield no results. 55. In Article 19 v Eritrea, the Commission also ruled that an exception will apply where the domestic situation of the State does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights.23 It follows therefore that the Victim could not approach the courts in Sudan at the time due to the circumstances aforementioned and particularly because of the ouster clauses in the Decree which rendered local remedies non-existent and ineffective.24 56. With respect to the mechanisms referred to by the Respondent State as remedies,25 it is the Commission's view that they do not fall under the category of judicial remedies which should be sought by Victims. This is because remedies referred to in Article 56(5) entail remedies sought from the courts of a judicial nature.26 57. Concerning the other remedies in the form of laws, the Commission notes that the National Security Act was adopted in 2010, while the violations occurred in 1989. In this regard, the Respondent State cannot cite a law that was not applicable at the time the alleged violations were committed or could be used to approach the courts. The above notwithstanding, it is the view of the Commission that the National Security Act of 2010 does not safeguard the interest of the Victim in the instant Communication. The reason being that even though the Act has provisions under Article 54(1) (2) which penalizes members of the NISS who commit crimes contrary to the Act, it also maintains the immunity of NISS members from prosecution and disciplinary action which can only be waived by the NISS Director after preliminary investigations have been initiated. This is an impediment in itself because the Victim cannot prosecute under such circumstances, especially because no preliminary investigations have been initiated in the instant case. 58. Regarding Article 35 of the CPA, the Commission considers that the concept of immunity under this Act27 equally has the tendency of shielding government officials from lawsuits by private citizens and unless these are absent or waived by the concerned officials, courts will not entertain suits by private individuals against them. This unreasonably limits the opportunity to deal with violations in courts and consequently lack of redress to victims of human rights violations. 59. Furthermore, the remedy provided under Article 35 of the CPA has been described in the Commission's jurisprudence as discretionary extraordinary remedy of a non judicial nature and therefore not effective. It has also been seen as a remedy not contemplated by Article 56(5),28 because it is an impediment to the exhaustion of local remedies. In a similar case, Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan,29 where the Respondent State claimed the availability of other remedies (referring to Article 34(2) of the CPA, as well as Articles 54(1) and 59 of the National Security Act of 2010), the Commission ruled that this kind of remedy is purely discretionary, not subject to judicial oversight and hence final. 60. The Commission also took this position in Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lakwot and 6 Others) v Nigeria,30 where it reasoned that... "It would be improper to insist on the Complainant seeking remedies from a source which does not operate impartially and have no obligation to decide according to legal principles. The remedy is neither adequate nor effective." In this regard, the Commission finds that the CPA cannot provide an effective remedy to the Victim. 7