respect of the rights of the Complainants is indeed a matter relevant at the Merits stage and irrelevant at the Admissibility stage. 92. The African Commission in several Communications held that the condition of exhaustion of local remedies “should not constitute an unjustifiable impediment to access international remedies. Therefore, Article 56(5) should be applied concomitantly with Article 7, which establishes and protect the right to fair trial”9. To this extent the African Commission, in determining whether local remedies have been exhausted takes into consideration the circumstances of each case, including the general context in which the formal remedies operate and the personal circumstances of the applicant.”10 93. In Communication No 250/2002 Zegveld v Eritrea11, the African Commission confirmed that a domestic remedy is considered effective if it offers a prospect of success, and sufficient or adequate if it is capable of redressing the complaint.12 In Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara v The Gambia, the African Commission decided that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. In the instant case and consistent with the jurisprudence of the Commission, there are no remedies remaining for the Complainants to pursue as they have no judicial right to appeal the decision of the State Security Emergency Court. What remains was for the President of the Republic to ratify the judgement to give force to it. 94. Therefore, if the victim cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because of lack of an effective legal remedy to address his fear and concerns, local remedies would be considered to be unavailable to him. 9 Communication No 48/90 Amnesty International v. Sudan at 31. Communication No 299/05 Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia at 49. 11 Communication. No. 250/2002 (2003) at 37. 12 See, also, Jawara v The Gambia, Comm. No. 147/95, 149/96 (2000) at 32. 10 22