crimes allegedly committed by their husbands. For this reason, it was not worthwhile to lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Military Court given that the latter had ordered the release of the Victims. 66. The Respondent State further argues that, regarding allegations of torture and the confiscation of property, the Victims can settle the matter in the Congolese legal system. The Respondent State submits that torture is prohibited under Article 15 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of Congo and that Article 180 of the 1940 Criminal Code, as presently amended (amended on 30 November 2004 and later amended by Law No. 06/018 of 20 July 2006 modifying and complementing the Decree of 30 January 1940 establishing the Congolese Criminal Code), sanctions the violations of the rights guaranteed to individuals by public servants. 67. The African Commission observes that in relation to the acts of torture alleged by the Complainant, they are supposed to have taken place during the period of detention which preceded the trial before the Military Court and are clearly not the result of this Court’s disputed judgement. 68. Thus, the victims had the opportunity after their release to bring the perpetrators of these acts before the local courts, which was not done. The same is true for the allegation of confiscation of the Victims’ property. 69. The African Commission observes that the Complainant needs to provide prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies.7 In the Communication 307/5 - Obert Chinhamo vs. Zimbabwe,8 the African Commission noted the conclusions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee according to which the simple fact that a local remedy is untimely or unappealing, or does not culminate in a result favourable to the Plaintiff does not in itself prove the non7 8 Zimbabwe: Chinhamo vs. Zimbabwe (2007) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2007), Paragraph 84 Zimbabwe: Chinhamo vs. Zimbabwe (2007) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2007) 15