one of the reasons for the exhaustion of local remedies is to give notice to the concerned State about the alleged violations so that it gets the opportunity to address the allegation. In this regard, the Committee, in addition to the local remedies sought by one of the Complainants, refers to the attempts by various international and regional interventions that have drawn the attention of the Respondent State on the same matter covered in the current Communication. In this regard, the Committee particularly refers to the joint letter of urgent appeal by the Committee and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights sent to the Respondent State regarding the right to education of pregnant girls on 21 July 2017 with Ref: ACHPR/LPROT/SM/652/17 regarding the school attendance by pregnant girls and young mothers in the Respondent State. In such circumstances, the Committee takes a strong view that it is against the best interests of the girls in the Respondent State to subject them to prolonged domestic proceedings on a matter that the Government of the Respondent State is well aware of. Moreover, the Committee declines the argument of the Respondent State that resorting to international human rights mechanisms without finalising cases at the domestic level is against the subsidiarity principle of transnational systems. The Committee is duly cognizant that regional and international mechanisms are subsidiary to domestic systems and such principle is reflected under its Revised Communications Guidelines prescribing exhaustion of local remedies as one criterion for admissibility of any communication. However, as explained earlier, this criterion is not without exception and the exceptions in no way compromise the principle of subsidiarity. 21. Concerning the submission of both parties on the availability of domestic remedy, the Committee makes reference to some of the instances where the remedies have been rendered to be unavailable including when the power or competence of the local courts have been ousted by decrees or any form of decisions; when there is fear for life if the case is brought before local courts,21 and when the remedies available are non-judicial or are discretionary.22 The Respondent State argues that the attempt of the Complainants to seek remedy is proof that remedy is available and cited cases where courts ruled favourably in cases that involved systematic issues like child marriage. The Committee takes the view that exemptions to exhaustion of local remedies are assessed on a case-by-case basis. The African Commission, as well as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, have both indicated the same, that the availability and effectiveness of a local remedy is assessed on a case-by-case basis.23 A remedy may be available according to the general principle or practice of the Respondent State, however, if the Complainants are not able to use it in their circumstances, it may be regarded as unsuitable for the case.24 While the Committee is convinced that a remedy may be available in the Respondent State for cases like 21 ACHPR, Communications 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia, (May 2000), para 34- 35. 22 H Onoria ‘The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the exhaustion of local remedies under the African Charter’ (2003) 3 African Human Rights Law Journal, 5; ACERWC, Communication No 002/2009, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) and other v Kenya (March 2011) para 30. 23 ACHPR, Communication 299/05, Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (May 2006), para 49; Inter American Court of Human Rights, Fairén-Garbi and Solís-Corrales v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, para 89. 24 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, 1999. JN 11