failed to obtain them, due to himself being blocked by Respondent State's agents in the judiciary from accessing effective local judicial remedies by certain actions, such as taking unreasonably long period of time to supply certified copies of proceedings and RulingsIJudgment that could enable him to make an appeal to the higher courts, deliberate disappearance of Court files to delay the speedy conclusion of his cases before the Court, and taking unreasonably long period of time to dispose of Appeals filed in the Court of Appeal, to delay exhaustion of local remedies. 26. The Complainant further submits that complaints against the judiciary, which he had brought on several occasions before bodies such as the Judicial Service Commission, Office of the Chief Justice, Kenya National Commission on Human, Rights and Law Society of Kenya had been treated with "disdain, susptdion and contempt ... dismissed or refused without conducting tlwrough investigations or inquiries". 27. The Complainant further submits that the ruling of the Vettirlg of Judges .:<'":", Magistrates Board of Kenya (Vetting Board) of 25th April 2012: and "constitutes an express and unequivocal official public admission on the part of the Respondent State herein to the effect that local judicial remedies are either unavailable, insufficient or are not effectively accessible at all to your humble petitioner and his clientele without coming face to face with artificial impediments unlawfully erected on the way by agents of the Respondent State to impede or delay access to justice" 28. The Complainant avers that the decision of the Vetting Board has been rendered final by a decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya (the Supreme Court) in Judges & Magistrates Vetting Board and others v Centre for Human Rights and Democracy and others (Petition No.13A, 14, 15 (2013), thereby proving the unavailability and ineffectiveness of local remedies. 29. The Complainant carps that the Chief Justice limited the constitutional powers of the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board of Kenya by insulating or cleverly shielding recalcitrant Judicial officers from scrutiny and accountability for crimes committed by allowing them to sit as Judges in their own cause, thereby violating Articles 3 and 7 of the African Charter. 30. The Complainant also avers that in many of his cases, judges have recused themselves deliberately to prolong and delay the process or dismissed his cases without delving into the merits. He submits that judges have failed to guarantee his right to fair trial, and that this has led to a breakdown in respect and trust between the judiciary and himself. 31. The Complainant submits that following his lodging of several complaints before the Commission, the Respondent State had kept him on the prowl and under very close surveillance and scrutiny, and that he had been intimidated and threatened with arrest~ and imprisonment, and that since he cannot turn to the Judiciary of his country attse of the generalized fear for his life, local remedies would be considered to be u ita Ie e,9 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR 1,4"" ,o;c.: \