were found inadmissible because she had not adopted them as exhibits in her affidavit. It is further that the written statement of Mr Mucheke was not admitted by the court because he was not formally called as a witness and the expert evidence of Dr. Brock Chisholm, the Psychiatrist who assessed the First Complainant was ruled inadmissible as the witness’ expertise was put to question despite his qualifications having been established in his testimony. The Complainants aver that the court thus dismissed the petition on the basis that they had failed to prove their burden and ordered them to bear the costs of the government. 30. The Complainants contend that the First Complainant did not pursue an appeal of the High Court decision due to the lack of a realistic prospect of success. It is submitted that this decision was motivated by three reasons, firstly, that the Court of Appeal would have been limited to a review of whether the trial judge erred in either procedure or law, and the Judge’s formalistic approach in considering the evidence was still justifiable under Kenyan, thus limiting the appeal’s prospects. Secondly, it is averred that the Court of Appeal would have been bound by the evidence presented in the trial court and with the First Complainant’s evidence being excluded, it would have been impossible for the Appeals Court to reach a different substantive conclusion. The Complainants argue thirdly that, the appeal would have taken long to conclude and exposed the First Complainant to financial burden and costs in the event of the appeal’s failure. The Complainants aver that the 12 year duration of the First Complainant’s civil claim before the High Court and her limited financial means made the prolongation of the appeal a plausible conclusion to make. It is thus submitted by the Complainants that the First Complainant exhausted local remedies. 31. The Complainants also contend that the Respondent State forfeited the right to deal with the matter domestically by taking no steps to investigate it. The Complainants’ authority for this contention is the case of Abdel Hadi, Ali Radi & Others v. Sudan2 in which the Commission held that “By failing to initiate an investigation into the complaints, the Respondent State thereby made any local remedies that theoretically existed, ineffective … It follows that the Respondent State has forfeited its prerogative to deal with the matter domestically and the Commission consequently considers that the requirement to exhaust local remedies must be dispensed with”. 2 Communication 368/09 4 June 2014, Para 47 8