…the primary responsibility to prosecute remains in the hands of the authorities of the State party, that have a non-delegable duty and obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the lengthy procedures initiated by the author before the judicial authorities had not had any result to that date. In such circumstances, the Committee does not find it reasonable to require that the author should have gone to court to initiate additional proceedings of an unpredictable duration, such as civil proceedings. A civil claim and an award of compensation, by itself, would not be an effective remedy. 84. The Court further observes that another rationale for the rule on exhaustion of local remedies is that the Respondent State has notice of the alleged violations and takes steps to remedy the same. It is unequivocal that the Respondent State was aware of the plight of PWA as its own witness during the public hearing testified that from the year 2007 to 2018, there were numerous incidents of persecution, attacks and killing of PWA. 85. Given the notice that the Respondent State had, combined with the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies in relation to alleged violations of the PWA, the Court finds that the PWA were not required to file individual suits in order to exhaust local remedies. 86. In relation to the second part of the objection that the Applicants could have assisted the PWA in filing cases before domestic courts, the Court reiterates that the lack of locus standi of the Applicants before the Respondent State’s domestic courts prevented them from filing such suits, thus, the Applicants were not required to exhaust local remedies. 87. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection and declares that the Application has complied with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 22