complaints from prisoners, are respected 4. Article 54(1) (2) of the National Security Act of 2010 stipulates that - If any member of the security service commits any crime in violation of the provisions of the law and this crime happens to be an offence in view of the provisions of the Criminal Act in force, he/she shall be penalized according to the provisions of the said Act. The Director, for objective reasons, shall produce him/her for trial by a competent court. 5. Concerning immunity of members of the NISS, Article 35 of the CPA stipulates that - Any person against whom criminal proceedings are directed and he/she enjoys immunity, a petition should be addressed to the Prosecutor for the Director of Security Service to waive his/her immunity". It is the Respondent State's contention that these are procedural immunities and are not absolute, noting that there are many examples of members of the security service who have been held accountable after committing crimes in the Respondent State. 28. The Respondent State submits that there are other modes of litigation which were not used by the Victim or his lawyer: The Supreme Court; Court of Appeal; General Criminal Court; Criminal Court of the First Instance; Criminal Court of the Second Instance; Common Criminal Court; and any Special Criminal Court that the Chief Justice may establish under the 1986 Judiciary Act or any other Act. 29. The Respondent State also provides other mechanisms for redress and justice in Sudan as follows: The Civic Judiciary System; Complaints within the National Security Services; The Grievances Committee within the National Advisory Council; The National Commission on Human Rights; and Office of the Ombudsman. It states that these mechanisms play a pivotal role as mechanisms to which Complainants could resort for local remedy without forfeiting the right to resort to the Courts. The Respondent State submits that these mechanisms have played a remarkable role in complaints dealing with violations of human rights. 30. Furthermore, the Respondent State cites Rafaat Makawi v. Sudan,8 a Constitutional Court case in relation to the death sentence passed on Najm El-Deen Gassam El-Seed for committing the crime of cold blood murder when he was below the age of eighteen (18). A petition was submitted to the Constitutional Court which issued a verdict supporting Najm El-Deen Gassam El-Seed's conviction, but at the same time imposed an alternative punishment because the accused was below the age of eighteen (18). The Respondent State submits that this case confirms the existence of an effective judiciary. 31. The Respondent State stresses that the rule of law prevails in Sudan and applicable to all, including members of the NISS.9 The Respondent State submits that when the Victim's lawyer advised him not to go back to Sudan to file a Complaint, he could have filed on behalf of the Victim without the latter's physical presence in the Sudan in accordance with Article 34 (2) of the CPA which stipulates that a -Complaint is lodged by the person against whom a crime is committed or by his representative. 32. The Respondent State submits that resort by the Complainant to the Constitutional Court cannot be considered an act of exhausting all local remedies or a final decision from the highest judicial body, for the following reasons: • Constitutional appeal is about the unconstitutionality of Articles relating to immunity as stipulated in the National Security Act and statute of limitation by virtue of which a criminal suit is dropped under the CPA and Article 58 on the Powers of the Minister of Justice for stopping a criminal law suit. The Respondent State submits that all these have nothing to do with the subject of the Victim's Complaint. • Even though the Complainant has raised the question of being denied the right to litigation for the fact that his claim was dropped due to the statute of limitation, this text did not deprive him of his right to litigation. It only limited the period of its validity. 33. The Respondent State submits further that the Communication does not comply with the requirement under Article 56(6) because it was not submitted within a reasonable period of time, since it mentions allegations dating back to 1989. 4