available if there exists a mechanism(s) by which competent national organs examine the substance and validity of a given complaint and, where the complaint is adjudged valid, grant appropriate relief. For this purpose there must exist relevant substantive and procedural laws, and competent institutions or organs and processes which a complainant can access and utilise in practice without unjustifiable impediments. 49. Further, the remedy to be exhausted must be effective and sufficient.14 A remedy is effective if it offers prospects of success and, upon success, the appropriate relief is one that is capable of adequately and timely redressing the specific violation suffered.15 Remarkably, the effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on the certainty or guarantee of a favourable outcome for the complainant.16 It is enough that the complaint is arguable, in the sense that it is as susceptible to being adjudged valid as it may be to be adjudged unmeritorious upon full examination of supporting and vitiating evidence, and legal arguments. Furthermore, as observed in Đorđević v. Croatia,17 in assessing effectiveness of a remedy, it is necessary to take into account, not only the formal remedies available, but also the general legal and political context in which they operate as well as the nature of the complaint and the personal circumstances of a given complainant. 50. In the present Communication, it clearly is not the case of the Complainant that local remedies are not available. To the contrary, the Complainants initially state that they exhausted local remedies, which is only possible if such remedies are available in the sense enunciated at paragraph 48 above. Indeed the facts stated at paragraphs 8 -11 and 29 above show that the first Complainant consecutively approached the Director of the CSO Agency, the Board of the CSO Agency, the Federal High Court and ultimately the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court. The Complainants do not allege that there were impediments in those endeavours. The Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court is the final judicial authority of the Respondent State. Before the domestic authorities, the first Complainant’s case was that the freezing of its bank accounts was premature and unlawful in terms of the relevant law. Assuming the domestic mechanism engaged by the first Complainant is the appropriate local remedy, it is available and was clearly exhausted upon the decision of the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court. The Respondent State does not contest this. Communication 147/95, 149/96 - Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (2000) ACHPR para. 31 & 32 Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988) IACtHR (Series C, No. 4) para.66 16 M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (2011) ECHR (Application No. 30696/09) para. 289 17 Đorđević v. Croatia, (2011) ECHR (App. No. 41526/10) para. 101 14 15 13 | P a g e