� r) 6�!:LEB �CHPJ? Human a;ghts ou, Human and Peoples' Rights Collective Respons1b11ity 66. Drawing from the above provisions - noting that they are still in force in Sudan - an inference can be made that the Complainant had no legal recourse within which he could successfully submit a claim before the domestic remedies within the Respondent State. Additionally, the Complainant could not be expected to approach the domestic remedies in the hopes that the NISS Director would choose to waive the immunity of the suspected officials. This kind of remedy is purely discretionary and is not subject to any judicial oversight, thus making it a final decision17. As noted by the Commission in its jurisprudence, a Complainant cannot be expected to exhaust a ". . . discretionary, extraordinary remedy of a non-judicial nature". Consequently, Complainants are not required to pursue such remedies if they are neither adequate nor effective. ,mu.t' , 67. Lastly, the Commission notes that Article 35 of the Interim National Constitution of Sudan 2005 provides for the right to litigation1 8. As such, the question arises whether the Complainant could have submitted a case through a representative to the Constitutional Court of Sudan. 19 alleging a violation of his right to litigation in light of the State's failure to investigate and the immunity provided to NISS officials. In the Elgak case, the Commission held that where local remedies are not accessible, effective, or adequate to Complainant or their representatives, as is the instant case, "it would be an affront to justice to expect them or anyone else for that matter to approach the Constitutional Court for the later to protect their right to litigation as enshrined under Article 35 of the 2005 Interim National Constitution of Sudan."20. 68. For the above-listed reasons, the Commission considers that local remedies are not available, effective, or sufficient. Hence, the Complainant has constructively exhausted local remedies pursuant to Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 69. Concerning Article 56(6) of the African Charter, the Commission recalls that the African Charter does not provide a fixed period for submitting Complaints within "a reasonable period of time"; this is determined on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the initial period from which the "reasonable period" is 11 Elgak case para 57; see also Communication 87/93 - Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lakwot and 6 Others) v Nigeria, (1994) ACHPR, para 8; Communication 60/91 - Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Wahab Akamu, G. Adega and Others) v Nigeria, (1994) ACHPR, para 10. 1s "The right to litigation shall be guaranteed for all persons; no person shall be denied the right to resort to justice'. 19 Art 122(1) (b) of the 2005 Interim National Constitution of Sudan: The Constitutional Court shall " . . . ...s-11:1�t11: jurisdiction to decide disputes that arise under this Constitution at the instance of government, juri individuals"; Art 122(1) {d) of the 2005 Interim National Constitution of Sudan: The Constitutional Co :/c..0 human rights and fundamental freedoms·. m � � � ro. AJ, O!Qan ol lhe ?" AfriGan a:_ Union , ,./I 15 African Commi t� 9 31 Bijilo Phone: (2 https:/achpr.au. ont/0 0 a