Public Prosecutor but no ruling on any of them had been made by the end of 2014.° 25.This shows that seeking a criminal conviction of one's slave master and obtaining compensation for one's deprivation of liberty, which exists in theory, is not effective in practice. In defining “effective remedy”, the Commission emphasized that the remedy should be practical, current, actual, real and valid to be considered as effective remedy.® According to the Commission, the remedy, which exists in theory but not in practice, cannot be considered to be effective. Moreover, as the Council of Europe in its practical guide on admissibility criteria underscored, "the existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice.”"° 26. Dealing on similar issues, the ACERWC, in the Center for Human Right and other on behalf of Talibes v. Senegal case, held the view that: ‘while it was apparent that penal laws were in existence proscribing the practice of forcing children to beg, Senegal had made little effort to enforce such provisions: as of 2011, only 10 cases had been brought resulting in 9 convictions but with the duration of imprisonment being minimal. In such circumstances, this Committee was of the view that concurs with the pursuing a criminal complaint was inefficient’.’ Similarly, communication, the Committee the avenue of in the present Complainants submission that ‘any remedies that may be available in theory under the 2007 Act, under which there has only been one conviction to date with a sentence not meeting the minimum prescribed by law, are neither effective nor sufficient in practice.’ 27.\n their submission, the Complainants argued that it is not the obligation of victims but that of the Respondent State’s to move criminal process forward. According to the Complainants, victims of human_ rights violations (where are considered as criminal offences under a State's domestic laws) have little control over the criminal process. In this regard, the ACHPR has consistently ruled that: ‘Whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the State on its own initiative, the State has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases, one cannot demand that the complainants or the victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the State to investigate the facts and domestic bring and the accused persons to court in accordance international fair trial standards.’"? Instead, with both by failing to 8 Amnesty International (n 7 above). ° See Anuak Justice Council v. Ethiopia (n 4 above). 1° Council of Europe/European Court of Human Right (2014) Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria para 72. " Centre for Human Right and other on behalf of Talibes v Senegal Communication No. Com/001/2012, para 38 "2 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 19 v Eritrea, Application No 275/2003, para 72. See also African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Dr Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim v Sudan, Communication No.386/10, 19-25 February 2013.