39. For these reasons, the Complainant submits that the domestic judicial process was flawed and could not render justice to the victims. 40. The Complainant states that Sudan has been under totalitarian military government headed by a th President who is still an active army officer since 30 June 1989. Consequently, the regime pursues a systematic policy of control and domination at all levels of the State apparatus including the judiciary whose procedure and decisions are not respected. As a result, Sudanese citizens, groups and organisations are unable to submit cases relating to human rights before the courts of law for fear of harassment, threats and intimidation by the government security agents. 41. To illustrate that the judiciary is not independent, the complainant refers the African Commission to the annual reports the then UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan in 3 4 the Fifty-eighth and the Fifty-ninth Sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights which make reference to the lack of independence of the judiciary in Sudan. Furthermore, the complainant states that the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (ICID), established by the UN Security Council in October 2004 to investigate crimes committed within the context of the armed conflict in Darfur also th examined the judicial system in Sudan as part of its mandate. In its report of 25 January 2005, the 5 ICID gives a comprehensive overview of the Sudanese judicial system . The Complainant submits that the report acknowledges that during the last decade the judiciary appeared to have been manipulated and politicised and as such judges who disagreed with the government often suffered 6 harassment, including dismissals. 42. The Complainant notes that, the Commission of Inquiry stated that it “considers that in view of the impunity which reigns in Darfur today, the judicial system has demonstrated that it lacks adequate 7 structures, authority, credibility…” 43. The Complainant also draws the attention of the African Commission to its decision in Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Association of 8 Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa/Sudan in which the Commission found that the judiciary in Sudan was not independent. The Complainant states that even after this pronouncement by the Commission, the situation in Sudan has not improved but has in fact deteriorated in manifolds, as more judges are purged from the judiciary and supporters of the government were appointed in their place. Summary of the Respondent State’s submission on Admissibility 44. The Respondent State starts by stating that the judicial system of the Sudan is one of the most competent and efficient organs of the State based on the principle of its total independence and the principle of separation of powers. It goes further to state that the judicial system is efficient, honest and characterised with competence. The State submits that the Sudan is one of the few African States which has a Supreme Court in every Province and a judicial system which is available to all. 45. The State contends that the complainants have not fulfilled the conditions stated in Article 56 of the African Charter. The Respondent State submits that the complaint has not complied with the condition in Article 56(5) of the African Charter which provides for the exhaustion of local remedies before a Communication is brought before the African Commission. 46. The State submits in this regard, that the complainants are afforded the opportunity to have their cases heard by the Constitutional Court and Department of Grievances these are the two mechanisms put in place by the Constitution of Sudan, for the protection of human rights. The State substantiates this claim with documents on statistics illustrating the judicial performance in the Sudan and states that the complainants are yet to exhaust all these avenues which are available to them. 47. The Respondent State claims that the provision of Article 56(1) was not fulfilled because the complaint “was submitted by a so-called Abdul-Baqui Jubril on behalf of Darfur Centre for Relief and Documentation Centre.” The State further states that this person continues to lodge complaints which are not backed by any evidence or legal basis, sometimes to the Commission, presenting complaints under the umbrella of a number of civil society organisations. 48. The State further states that the complainant has failed to comply with the provisions of 56(2) of the African Charter and that the complainant’s resort to Article 1 of the Charter is not applicable in the present case. The State submits that the ultimate nature of any case is that there is a winner and a