Respondent State. Secondly, he submits that due to the practical barriers imposed by his incommunicado detention, and the lack of access to domestic courts in Djibouti, there was equally no remedy available to him to challenge and prevent his deportation from Djibouti at the end of his alleged two weeks detention there. Thirdly, and for the same reasons, local remedies to challenge and possibly prevent his refoulement into the U.S. Government’s extraordinary rendition program were also unavailable to him in Djibouti. 71. The Complainant goes further to argue that even post-facto remedies to redress the violations he alleges are not available in Djibouti. In this regard he states that the principal post-facto remedy for the type of violations perpetrated against him whilst allegedly in Djibouti is the criminal prosecution of those responsible pursuant to the state’s duty to carry out effective investigation of human rights violations of a criminal nature and prosecute and punish those responsible. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State has failed to discharge its obligation in this regard, even after he notified the latter about the acts perpetrated against him. Moreover, he argues, the Republic of Djibouti “as a guardian of law and order and protector of human rights in the country”, must be presumed to be generally aware of the situation in its country; and having been involved through its agents in his detention and interrogation, it must equally be presumed to have been aware of the criminal activities taking place within its territory against him. He argues that the Respondent State having failed to institute an effective investigation, even upon notice through his letter of 31 March 2009 to the Respondent State’s Chief Prosecutor, he was and is under no obligation to bring private prosecution as a domestic remedy. 72. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that post-facto civil remedies in particular are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient because, among others, “they are impossible to realise in the absence of a full criminal investigation by the Respondent State”, and in any event civil remedies are not a sufficient remedy for cases of serious violations such as he allegedly suffered. 73. In the alternative, the Complainant submits that even if for argument’s sake there are any effective civil remedies in Djibouti, the Communication falls within recognised exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard he argues first that exhaustion is not required where, as he maintains is his case, a Complainant has grounds to fear for his life should he return to the jurisdiction where his rights were violated. For this purpose, he states that the treatment he was subjected to in Djibouti has caused so much fear in him that he cannot safely return and pursue any remedies there. Secondly, he argues that exhaustion of domestic 13