59. In fact the Commission has in several cases made it clear that the rationale behind the exhaustion of local remedies is to give states a chance to remedy human rights violations through their own mechanisms and institutions. This is based on the assumption that the state was not aware of the alleged human rights violations. 60. In the case at hand, the Respondent State does not contest that the Government received application from the British Embassy representative regarding the unlawful arrest and detention of the Complainants, and an open letter was sent by one of them to the General Director of NISS informing him of the human rights violations that they allegedly suffered in the hands of NISS officers, which was widely published inside and outside of Sudan. The Respondent State does not also deny that the Government received an Urgent Action request from Amnesty International in connection with the situation of the three Complainants, and that there was wide media coverage about them. The defense of the Respondent State is rather that all these do not amount to legal proceeding as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter. 61. The Government therefore was not unaware of the situation; rather it wanted a formal legal compliant to be filed. In the case of Amnesty International and Others v Sudan wherein lawyers, human rights activists and members of opposition group were arbitrarily arrested, tortured and killed and where there were reports by the media and UN organs about these violations, the Commission found that even where no legal action has been brought by the alleged victims at the domestic level, the government has been sufficiently aware to the extent that it can be presumed to know the situation within its own territory as well as the content of its international obligations 17 62. In a similar case against Eritrea where 18 journalists were detained incommunicado for allegedly posing a threat to national security, and were imprisoned for years, the Commission found that the State has had ample notice and time within which to remedy the situation,.....and is expected to have taken appropriate steps to remedy the violations alleged 18 The Commission further went on to rule that whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the state on its own initiative, the state has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases one cannot demand that the Complainants, or the victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the state to investigate the facts and bring the accused persons to court in accordance with both domestic and international fair trial standards 19 63. Accordingly, in the present case the Government had ample notice about the alleged human rights violations, and should have accordingly taken the necessary steps to investigate the matter particularly since it has admitted that the Complainants were under the custody of the NISS for some time, and that it had enough information and notice to initiate investigation into the alleged violations. 64. However, the Respondent State in its submissions has not shown that to date it has taken any measures to investigate into the matter and bring those responsible to justice. Based on this the Commission finds that the fact that the Government has not taken any action means that domestic remedies are either not effective or sufficient to redress the violations alleged 20 . 65. The Respondent State also contends that there were other remedies available for the Complainants. The State submits that the Complainants or their representatives could have approached the Prosecutor to initiate a criminal case pursuant to Article 34(2) of the CPA of 1991, or file a complaint against the NISS members in accordance with Article 54(1) and Article 59 of the NISS Act of 2010. The Respondent State further submits that if the accused NISS members enjoy immunity the Complainants could approach the Director of NISS directly or through the Prosecutor General to lift the immunity of the alleged perpetrator(s). 66. According to these laws, to press criminal charges against members of the NISS, the Director should first lift the immunity of the accused members. When the accusations are lodged against the Director himself and people working under him, it would be implausible to think that the Director would lift the immunities, including that of his own. This is a case where the Director would become a judge in his own case, and it would be making mockery of justice to expect that the Complainants would get justice from such discretionary remedy. 8