70. Furthermore, one of the Applicants, that is, the LHRC, filed a public interest case previously together with the Tanzania Albino Society19 before the Hight Court of Tanzania, which was dismissed for lack of locus standi, making the remedy unavailable. 71. The Court reiterates its jurisprudence that local remedies need not be exhausted in circumstances where NGOs representing the interests of individuals are proscribed from seizing the domestic courts of the Respondent State. This is because such remedies are considered to be unavailable.20 72. Resultantly, it is manifest that the Applicants as corporate bodies, had no locus standi to file a case alleging the violation of the rights of PWA in the Respondent State’s courts. Therefore, the local remedies were unavailable to the Applicants. ii. Objection on the ground that the national courts were not seized by the PWA individually 73. According to the Respondent State, its local remedies are available, effective and sufficient. In this regard, it argues that it has put in place mechanisms to ensure that the rights of PWA are respected. The mechanisms include: i. Fast tracking of investigation and adjudicating of cases involving PWA – this is aided by a task force which includes the Office of the Attorney General, Police Force, National Prosecutions Service, Combating of Corruption Bureau, Chief Government Chemist and the Office of the President of the Republic; ii. Having special sitting sessions of the judiciary in order to handle cases involving PWA; and 19 High Court of Tanzania, Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanzania Albino Society v. Attorney General & others, Miscellaneous Civil Cause No 15 of 2009 (10/9/2015) 21. 20 Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, §§ 109-111. 19