that there is a right of appeal from the UHRC to the High Court. The Respondent State further noted while that the UHRC does not investigate any matter pending before a court or judicial tribunal, and with regard to the order for compensation, this remedy was not sought from the UHRC or High Court. The Respondent State concluded that the Complainants had not exhausted the local remedies available to them. 52. Additionally, the Respondent State noted that the accused were charged before the High Court, released on bail, and further charged before the General Court Martial, which rendered the application for bail difficult to implement at the time, given that the accused had been charged before another competent court for different offences. The Respondent State noted that the condition for bail, not the right to bail under the General Court Martial was still a subject of appeal before the Supreme Court, since the Constitutional Court’s position was not clear, and concluded that the Complainants had not exhausted local remedies given that the Supreme Court had not pronounced itself in finality in the matter. 53. The Respondent State also reiterated the assertion that the Complainants lodged a petition before the East African Court of Justice, which was finally decided. 54. In conclusion, the Respondent State averred that the Victims could still get remedies locally. The Commission’s Analysis on Admissibility 55. Article 56 of the African Charter provides seven requirements, which must all be met before a Communication can be declared Admissible by the Commission. 56. From the submissions of the parties, the Admissibility of this Communication is contested on two grounds; non-exhaustion of local remedies as stipulated in Article 56(5) of the African Charter, and on the grounds that the Communication deals with a case which has been settled by the State involved, as stipulated in Article 56(7). Given that the Respondent State has not contested sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) of Article 56, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, the Commission holds that the aforementioned sub-Articles of Article 56 of the Charter have been met. The Commission will proceed to determine whether the requirements under the contested sub-sections of Article 56 have been met. 57. Article 56(5) of the African Charter states that Communications relating to human and peoples’ rights shall be considered if they: “are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.” The Complainants submit that they have exhausted all local domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 56(5) but have not obtained relief. In support of this, the Complainants referred to release and declaratory orders the Victims applied for, which were pronounced in favour of the applicants. The Respondent State, on other hand, contends that because the Victims did not apply to have their case addressed 9