ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Complainant to seize the domestic cour s. The Commission has stressed that, remedies the availability of which is not 6vident, cannot be invoked by the state to the detriment of the complainant.F Inlthis regard, the Commission recalls its decision in [atoara u.: The Gambia.t> Whe~eit held that, even if certain domestic remedies were available, "[t]he existe.Liceof a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness." 84. The Commission observes that the Complainants in the present case currently :n~:~*~~:~~!:~: ~:n~:r!p~:~: ~;;l~=:~~~ :::"~:;:~::: that" it makes no sense to wait for the aourkf0(;hant an\~jiction order against [them] fr?m Portion 41,. ~hereas they ~:?"p()\t']_if>;' an.::HuJhere t? go", before, approaching the CommISSIOn.For th~1'_reasq1j.s'Jh '" inants do not deny that they are unlawful occuBier{/of the-proper' <~:;:;pd t of the counter claim against the gov~rnhW:l1tt~ suggests thaet~ have no other immediately available remedies ;:~/ainst'~i1;~: Ee~pphdent Stat"' .ts sub-national government. ".,:,.':'t~', ,JEre ¥~I:{5!f;;\}' ~ ~ 85. The Commission hol~~t:,the view tf the Compla~na~ts' submissions in the present Comrnunicatio dicate that 'uthoritl~s7,of the Respondent State were sufficiently , c"',!fie 'olaho ~eg~dly perpetrated against the Complainants{'~7: cas~fhavin ~(n[:~Sn hea1d by ).;:~lRighest court in the land. 86. tt~ On the ~asis.1i,the ~~~egoing,a~d::~i~~~.~,at likelihood o~the Complaina~ts succeeding m;i~~etammg a remedy t ," vould redress their current housing crisis and livlllg.\,conditions is §9, inimal as to render it illusory, the Commission find$l.:t,h~tthe requi;~p,_ent of Article 56(5) of the African Charter hav~l)~e11:met by the,:Gi~ . ~t's. "'. .'\ . ","-, "",,-'" .... ...." ( }::/ v , 87. Regara:in~"th~:,,:req~irement of Article 56(6) of the African Charter which stipulat~~, .}~at 'edrprIl1;mications received by the Commission shall be considered 4f they aresubmitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies a:i-,~\exhausted, or from the d~te the Commission is seized with the matter, the R~sp~mdent State contends that the Communication was submitted after an unreasonable period. The Govbrnment argued that the Commission could not have been seized of the matter before 22 February 2012, which is the date indicated on the CommUnication~ [and which date] is more than nine months after the Applicants' application was dismissed by the Constitutional Court". Furthermore, it contended that }'the test is not when the c ..il'i~s~ /I ~/(~ ~ ~~, x-cRETARI41' D,o '\, Y0U '/ 0,0 '" ('0 }.~/~ Jawara v. The Gambia (2000) AHRLR 107 (ACHPR 2000) para 34 (Jawara case). 13 Jawara case, para 35. 12 ;JJ :{~ ( t 't5 ~ I ~ (~;j :;\u () ';'\~ % \0\ d. ~U' 1~ 171<S;b r: "",,,,-:c:P AU-UA s J-< I Q .£.;)'''<.-0, \'~~€1~l')t"!)J.)'tv" ~.~ ~~_m....-:-~:'t'i- tfJ ....;r J1