EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 63 60. The Complainant submits that there are no adequate or effective domestic remedies to address the violations, and the Respondent State on the other hand, provides a specific legislation that it claims is available. 61. According to the Respondent State, Section 11 (5) of Oil Pipelines Act LFN 2004 of the domestic law of Tort provides several remedies for pipeline explosions. In reading the said law, the African Commission is of the view that Section 11 (5) indeed creates a civil liability on the person who owns or is in charge of an oil pipeline. According to the law, the latter would be liable to pay compensation to anyone who suffers physical or economic injury as a result of a break or leak in his pipelines.44 The Complainant did not adduce any evidence in their submission that it has attempted to use this legislation to redress the violations for compensation to the victims of the pipeline explosion. 62. Furthermore, the case of World Organisation Against Torture and others v 45 Zaire, which the Complainant based their argument upon for waiver of the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, cannot be applied in the current Communication because the Complainant did not provide evidence for this general statement, nor any precedent which show that Section 11 (5) of Oil Pipelines Act LFN 2004 is proved to be an unduly prolonged avenue, nor have they attempted to take their case before a court of law. 63. The African Commission is of the view that the initial burden is on the Complainant to prove that they have met the requirement set-out in Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. Thereafter the burden shifts to the Respondent State if it contests the allegations of the former, declaring that there is further available and effective remedy. 64. In the current Communication, the Respondent State provides in its submission that Section 11 (5) of Oil Pipelines Act LFN 2004 is an available and effective remedy for the victims of the pipeline explosion, which, as indicated above, the Complainant failed to refute or prove otherwise. 65. In Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia the African Commission declared the Communication Inadmissible because the Complainant did not provide evidence to their claim about why they could not exhaust local remedies. The African Commission said in its decision that: 44 45 Sec 11 (5) of Oil Pipelines Act LFN 2004: “The holder of a licence shall pay compensation (a) to any person whose land or interest in land (whether or not it is land respect of which the licence has been granted) is injuriously affected by the exercise of the rights conferred by the licence, for any such injurious affection not otherwise made good; and (b) to any person suffering damage by reason of any neglect on the part of the holder or his agents, servants or workmen to protect, maintain or repair any work structure or thing executed under the licence, for any such damage not otherwise made good; and (c) to any person suffering damage (other than on account of his own default or on account of the malicious act of a third person) as a consequence of any breakage of or leakage from the pipeline or an ancillary installation, for any such damage not otherwise made good. If the amount of such compensation is not agreed between any such person and the holder, it shall be fixed by a court in accordance with Part iv of this Act.” World Organisation Against Torture and Others v Zaire