these characteristics is lacking, the local remedies cannot meet the requirements stipulated in Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 41. In this Communication, the Complainant alleges that that the local remedies were not available as a result of the fear and persecution which prevented the victims from seeking public protection. On this point, the Commission makes reference to its jurisprudence in the case, Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, where it decided that as the Complainant had been under threat and persecution, he could not have had access to any remedies, which, in any case were not available.5 Generally, the Commission considers that, as it pertains in the case of its decisions in Jawara v. The Gambia and Aminu v. Nigeria,6 in situations where referral to local remedies in itself creates fear and constitutes a risk to the life of the Complainant or the victim, such remedies are deemed unavailable. 42. Under the case in point, the Commission notes that the alleged violations were initially confined, at least, to a period of time between the introduction of the concept of « ivoirité » in 1993 and the seisure of the Commission in 2006. The events that occurred in Côte d’Ivoire during that period are well known internationally. In this case, the widespread acts of physical violence targeting a specific section of the population, particularly people from the North belonging to the Dioula ethnic group or people of Islamic religious persuasion, were reported by several international organizations. 43. The Commission notes for instance, that the said violations were documented and denounced, among others, by the United Nations Security Council and other international non-governmental human rights organizations.7 The Commission particularly notes that the sources mentioned in this context help to identify the main perpetrators of the alleged violations as public authorities, including the police force and the gendarmerie, as well as public officials.8 44. Even so, the Commission clearly observes that the environment of persecution and insecurity existing in Côte d’Ivoire at the time of the facts, especially towards the targeted communities, could not have motivated the See Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan Communication 228/99 (2003) AHRLR 144 (ACHPR 2003) para 33. 6 Communication 205/97 (2000) AHRLR 258 (ACHPR 2000) para 13. 7 See Security Council Resolution 1464, para 7, U.N. Doc.S/RES/1464 (4 February 2003). See also Amnesty International Report 2004 Côte d’Ivoire http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL10/ 004/2004/en/b1d27f7f-775c-42cc-87cb-94360efc0cec/pol100042004fra.pdf (consulted on 23 January 2014). 8 See Security Council and Amnesty International, op cit. See also, US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy and Labor, Country Report on Human Rights Practices http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2005/61565.htm (consulted on 23 January 2014). 5 10