concerned State in a form of letters or reports and requesting the State to respond to the same.8 The Special Mechanisms then report their communications and the replies of States to the Human Rights Council. As such, they do not have the mandate to issue any form of relief or decision on the complaints they receive. If the Committee considers the current communication, it cannot be said that the Respondent State is being subjected to an international procedure more than once on the same matter as no decision or relief was or can be issued to the victims by the above-mentioned special mechanisms. 15. The Respondent State relied on various cases in substantiating its argument that the case is pending before another procedure including the Mpaka-Nsusu v Zaire case and Interights v Eritrea and Ethiopia case of the African Commission among others. However, the Committee notes that the jurisprudences in which the Respondent State relied are not similar to the case at hand. The Mpaka-Nsusu v Zaire case was declared inadmissible by the African Commission because it was already considered by the Human Rights Committee which is a treaty body with a quasi-judicial human rights mandate similar to the Commission.9 The Commission in the Interights v Eritrea and Ethiopia case did not declare the case inadmissible; rather admitted the case and suspended the consideration until the Claims Commission make a decision.10 16. Based on the above, the Committee decides that the complaints that have been submitted to the Special Rapporteur on Education and the Working Groups on Discrimination against Women in Law and Practice do not qualify as matters ‘pending settlement or previously settled’ under Section IX (1) (c) of the Guidelines, hence the Committee is not prevented from considering the Communication. ii. Whether the Complainants have exhausted local remedies, and whether they should be exempted from exhausting local remedies 17. The second issue concerning admissibility in the current Communication is the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The Committee notes, Section IX (1) (d) of the Revised Communication Guidelines provides that a Communication is admissible, among others, if submitted ‘after having exhausted available and accessible local remedies, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged or ineffective’. While the Complainants argue that local remedy has been unduly prolonged and is not available and effective, the Respondent State, referring to the previous cases, argues that local remedies are indeed available and effective. Examining the matter in contestation, the Committee refers to the long-established principle that only judicial remedies that are ‘available, effective, and sufficient’ should UN-OHCHR, ‘Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council’ https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/sp/pages/welcomepage.aspx (accessed 17 August 2022). 9 ACHPR, Communication No. 15/88 Mpaka - Nsusu Andre Alphonse v. Zaire, para 2; HRC, Communication No. 157/1983, Andre Alphonse Mpaka-Nsusu v Zaire, Twenty Seventh Session. 10 ACHPR, Communications 233/99- 234/99: Interights (on behalf of Pan African Movement and Citizens for Peace in Eritrea) v Ethiopia and Interights (on behalf of Pan African Movement and Inter African Group) / Eritrea para 55. 8 JN 8