30. The Complainants argue that numerous procedural obstacles have been deliberately and systematically brought up by the state. The Complainants claim that despite appearing in Court over a dozen times in the intervening years, CEMIRIDE have never had a hearing on the Merits of their case. Giving an example of such deliberate "procedural obstacles", the Complainants state that on 8 July 2003, Justice Daniel Aganyanya of the Nairobi High Court refused to transmit the file to the Chief Justice on the grounds that there was a need to ascertain the identity of the 100,000 Applicants on whose behalf the application had been filed. The Complainants argue that this was clearly burdensome and inconsistent with the orders obtained on 17 March 2003, which recognized that a Complainant called Yunis Ali had a right to represent the Nubian class of people. 31. The Complainants argue that the Plaintiffs brought the case before another High Court Judge, Justice Kariuki, arguing that the order to produce 100,000 affidavits was unreasonable. They state that Justice Kariuki agreed and also fixed a date for the hearing of the case on the Merits for 7 June 2004. However, when CEMIRIDE appeared before the sitting Judge (Justice Mugo) for the case to be heard as scheduled, Justice Mugo declined to hear the case and referred it back to the duty judge for directions on the grounds that there were contradictory orders in the file. The Complainants argue that within fifteen months of filing, the case had been brought before five different judges, none of whom has proceeded with it. 32. The Complainants further argue that CEMIRIDE wrote to the Chief Justice on 18 June 2004 to complain about the numerous administrative obstacles placed on the path of the Applicants, but no response was received. The Complainants further state that apart from the letter of 18 June 2004, numerous letters on the matter have also been despatched to the Chief Justice, with no reply. 33. The Complainants claim that for more than three years after CEMIRIDE instituted proceedings on behalf of the Nubian community, no Bench has been constituted by the High Court, and no date has been fixed for a substantive hearing on the case. Such delays, argue the Complainants, are excessive and unduly prolonged. 34. The Complainants also argue that real remedies are essentially non-existent in Kenya. The Communication alleges violations of Articles 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the African Charter by the Kenyan Government. These articles guarantee economic rights as well as group rights. The Complainants argue that the Kenyan Constitution does not protect these rights, that it only guarantees civil and political rights of the individual. Therefore, legal remedies for violations of these rights are not available in the Courts in Kenya. 35. The Respondent State submits that the present Communication should not be admitted because the Applicants have not exhausted local remedies in the Kenyan judicial and administrative systems. 36. The Respondent State argues that the case is still pending in the High Court of Kenya. It argues that it was stood over because the Court demanded some information to confirm that indeed some of the people who are represented in the suit are the bona fide aggrieved persons. The Respondent State says that the Plaintiffs were asked to identify the Applicants, but they were unable to do so or for their own well-known reasons did not do so. 37. The Respondent State argues that during the preliminary hearing, the Applicants were found to have identity cards and passports and the issue that arose was whether they had locus standi to institute the suit. It states that the presiding Judge then gave orders asking the Applicants to produce affidavits authorising them to represent the Nubian community by the Nubians they were representing before placing the file before the Chief Justice. 38. The Respondent State argues that to date, the Applicants / Complainants have never filed the required affidavits and the case is stood over generally until the parties set a date for the hearing. The Respondent State therefore argues that the Complainants should not have come before the African Commission until they have exhausted all local remedies. 4