86. The Commission also notes that the Respondent State did not address itself to the specific allegations levied against it. The Respondent State merely stated that the Egyptian legal system grants a sufferer the right to seek judicial remedy and to receive a compensation for the harm he/she has suffered. It further states that the Victims have the opportunity to reopen the investigation where there is new evidence or information. 87. The Commission has in the past acknowledged the difficulty for victims seeking redress when state agents are the alleged perpetrators. While considering a case in which Sierra Leonean asylum seekers and refugees had apparently not exhausted local remedies for breaches by Guinean state agents, it noted that ‘when the authorities tasked with providing protection are the same individuals persecuting victims, an atmosphere in which domestic remedies are available is compromised.26 In this case the African Commission considered that there were, in practice, no available remedies to be exhausted. 88. In the present case, when the Victims sought to engage the authorities after the eviction, simply to ascertain basic information or to recover their belongings, they were blocked, harassed and in some cases threatened with physical violence or deportation. Others were directly threatened that there would be serious consequences if they were to “appear at a police station.” The Respondent State did not address this allegation in its rebuttal. 89. Consequent to the foregoing, the African Commission holds that, in the present Communication, the local remedies in Egypt were not available and effective to the Complainants and hence the Complainants have exhausted local remedies pursuant to Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. The Commission declares the Communication admissible. Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (On behalf of Sierra Leone Refugees) v Guinea 249/2002 para 33. 26 21