discussions, the African Commission noted that the Respondent State had not responded to the issues raised by the Complainant. The African Commission therefore decided to defer consideration of these communications to the 31st Session, pending receipt of detailed written submissions from the Respondent State in response to the submissions of the Complainant. 17. On 15th November 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties on the decision of the African Commission and requested the Respondent State to forward its written submissions within two (2) months from the date of notification of this decision. 18. At its 31st Ordinary Session held from 2nd to 16th May 2002, in Pretoria, South Africa, the African Commission heard submissions from both parties and declared the communication admissible. 19. On 29th May 2002, the Respondent State and the Complainants were informed of the African Commissionâs decision. 20. At the 32nd Ordinary Session, the Representative of the Respondent State made oral and written submissions requesting the African Commission to review its decision on admissibility relating to all the communications brought by the Complainant against the government of Sudan. The African Commission informed the Respondent State that the issue of admissibility of the communications had been settled and that the Respondent State should submit its arguments on the merits. 21. At its 33rd Ordinary Session held from 15th to 29th May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African Commission considered this communication and decided to deliver its decision on the merits. Law Admissibility 22. Article 56(5) of the Charter stipulates that âcommunications relating to Human and Peoplesâ Rightsâ?received by the African Commission shall be considered if theyâ?are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolongedâ?â. 23. The Complainant alleges that no effective domestic remedies exist as the punishments were carried out immediately after the verdict and sentencing by the Court of First Instance. As a result, any right of appeal was thus illusionary and ineffective for preventing the cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment to which the petitioners were subjected. The Complainant submits that a remedy that has no prospect of success does not constitute an effective remedy and states that the Criminal Code of Sudan had been steadfastly applied in numerous cases and hence there was no reasonable prospect of success of having it declared invalid. 24. He adds that a visa was denied to the legal representative of the victims. By failing to ensure that the victims were given a fair hearing in which their lawyers represented them in matters concerning their human rights under the [African] Charter, the government of Sudan denied the victims the right to local effective remedies. 25. The Respondent State claims that the lawyers for the accused have not submitted any appeal against the judgment of the Court of Cassation, and after the expiry of the stipulated period for submitting an appeal to the Supreme Court the judgment became final. The defendants had the possibility of appealing against the judgment of the Court of Cassation to the Supreme Court since Article 182 of the 1991 Criminal Procedure [Code] entitles them to this right. 26. The Respondent State believes that the case does not deserve to be considered and submits that the accused students committed acts deemed criminal by the existing laws of the country; they legally appeared before the courts and enjoyed their right to defence by a lawyer. They had an opportunity to appeal, which they did only once, and have not exhausted the opportunities which the law offered them. Article 56(5) of the [African] Charter provides for the requirement of exhausting all local remedies before appealing to the African Commission. He therefore requests the African Commission to declare the communication inadmissible. 27. In order to exhaust the local remedies within the spirit of Article 56(5) of the [African] Charter, one needs to have access to those remedies but if victims have no legal representation it would be difficult to access domestic remedies. 28. For the above reasons, the African Commission declares the communication admissible. 2