lawful under Sudanese law. The Complainant therefore submits that the Victim is pursuing redress for these alleged violations of his rights through the African Commission because the actions committed by the NSS contravene Sudan's obligations under the African Charter. 48. Thirdly, the Complainant submits that NSS officials enjoy broad powers of immunity and so cannot be prosecuted for any wrongdoing domestically, unless the immunity has been lifted. It is averred that Article 52 (3) of NSA 2010 provides that, "no civil or criminal procedures may be brought against a member or associate unless upon the approval of the Director". is the Complainant therefore argues that the Director holds sole discretion over whether NSS immunities are to be lifted, and ultimately decides whether a case can be brought against any security personnel. For this reason, the Complainant alleges that no transparent and effective remedies are available to challenge inaction or refusal to lift the immunity. The Complainant supports this allegation with an extract from the Concluding observations of the United Nation's (UN) Human Rights Committee on Sudan. 18 49. In relation to the above, the Complainant recalled the African Commission's position in Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan that: "This kind of remedy [as envisaged under Article 52 (3) of NSA] is purely discretionary and even worse is not subject to judicial oversight and hence is final. In several instances, the Commission has made its position clear that when a remedy is discretionary, extraordinary remedy of a non-judicial nature, then the Complainants are not required to pursue it as part of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. "19 50. Based on the foregoing, the Complainant concludes that the Victim was unable to bring any legal action against the NSS for the human rights violations that were committed against him due to the blanket immunities. 51 . Finally, and in addition to the above, the Complainant submits that the Victim was unable to pursue legal action in Sudan after release from detention due to a genuine risk of further human rights violations. The Complainant submits that the Victim had to flee from Sudan in 2012 out of genuine fear of further violation on his human rights and has not been back to Sudan since. 1a UN Human Rights Committee: Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3/CRP.1 , 26 July 2007, para.9. 19 Communication 379/09 (2015) ACHPR, para. 67. 20 Fn 13 above, para. 35. 10