Complainant's supplementary submissions on Admissibility 34. In the Complainant's additional submissions, it submits that all available remedies have been exhausted, and that the remedies referred to by the Respondent State are not effective. The Complainant cites Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia (the Jawara case) where the Commission held that a remedy is deemed effective "If it offers a prospect of success, and it is capable of redressing the complaint.10 35. The Complainant avers that the Respondent State does not identify any remedies that offer a prospect of success that would redress the wrong alleged. According to the Complainant, this would require a procedure that will compel the Respondent State to carry out an effective investigation into the alleged torture and other violations so as to establish the facts, hold the perpetrators accountable, and provide adequate compensation to the Victim. 36. The Complainant highlights measures taken by the Victim regarding his Complaint when legal avenues were not available to him and subsequent resort to the Constitutional Court after it was established in 2005. The Complainant further reiterates that the Victim had to leave the country out of fear for his safety in 1991, but pursued his Complaint as soon as the circumstances appeared to be more conducive. 37. The Complainant states that taking the matter to the Constitutional Court was the last domestic opportunity for the Victim as it constituted an adequate remedy given that the Court has the power, under Article 15(1) (d) of the Constitutional Court Act of 2005, to declare a legislation unconstitutional, and to compel the authorities to take action to protect fundamental rights. According to the Complainant, domestic remedies were exhausted in 2009 when the Constitutional Court's ruling was communicated to the Victim. 38. Concerning Article 56(6), the Complainant states that the Communication was submitted within a reasonable period and that the material date for the exhaustion of local remedies was 2009, not 1989 as argued by the Respondent State. It submits that the Victim's initial Complaint of February 1990 had been pending for several years during which no remedies were available to challenge the failure of the authorities to investigate. This situation only changed in 2005 with the adoption of a new Constitution which enabled the Victim to raise the legal issues surrounding the lack of effective remedies by way of a constitutional challenge in 2006. The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 39. The Admissibility of Communications within the Commission is governed by the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter which provides for seven requirements to be met before a Communication can be declared Admissible. If any of the requirements set out in this Article are not met, the Commission declares the Communication Inadmissible. 40. The Complainant argues that all the requirements under Article 56 have been met. The Respondent State on the other hand, contends that the Complainant has not fulfilled the requirements under sub-Articles 4, 5 and 6, and as such, the Commission should declare the Communication Inadmissible. 41. The Commission is convinced that the other sub-articles which are not disputed have been complied with and would thus proceed to analyze the contended sub-articles based on the submissions of both Parties. 42. Article 56(4) of the African Charter states that "Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights... shall be considered if they are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media." The Complainant does not respond to the Respondent State's contention that the Communication is based on information from the media. However, based on the facts before the Commission, there is no evidence indicating that the allegations contained in the Communication are based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media as argued by the Respondent State. Furthermore, the Victim's affidavit and Court judgments are attached to the Communication. For these reasons, the Commission holds that the requirements of Article 56(4) have been fulfilled. 43. Article 56(5) of the African Charter states that -Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights... shall be considered if they are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. The jurisprudence of the Commission affirms that Complainants are required to exhaust local remedies only if they are available, effective and sufficient. A local remedy is considered available "If the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.11 Exhausting local remedies gives the State notice of events occurring within its territory, with an opportunity to deal with the allegations using its own judicial and administrative procedures, before being called before an international 5