cause damage to the Sudanese judiciary on the basis of baseless allegations that bear no relationship to the substance of the complaint. 27. The Respondent State submits that Ghazi Suleiman is a human rights advocate in Sudan and as such there is no way he could have failed to bring a complaint with respect to the threat if it had really taken place. The Respondent State further submits that the Complainant should have exercised his constitutional rights by instituting court proceedings against the law enforcement agencies for failure to comply with and violating the Constitution and the law. 28. The Respondent State also submitted that the domestic remedies are effective and provided legislation and case precedents to support this claim. 29. The rule of exhausting domestic remedies is the most important condition for admissibility of communications, there is no doubt therefore, in all communications seized by the African Commission, the first requirement considered concerns the exhaustion of local remedies in terms of Article 56 (5) of the Charter. 30. In applying Article 56 (5) of the [African] Charter requires [sic]: “the exhaustion of all domestic remedies, if they are of a judicial nature, are effective and are not subordinate to the discretionary power of the public authorities” (see para 37 ofcommunications 48/90, 50/91 and 89/93 Amnesty 1 International et al./Sudan ). 31. Furthermore, the African Commission has held that: “a remedy is considered available if the Complainant 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” (see para. 32. of communications 147/95 and 149/96 Sir Dawda K. Jawara/The Gambia). 32. The Respondent State‟s assertion of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies will therefore be looked at in this light. The existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. In the present case, the Complainant submits that Ghazi Suleiman could not resort to the judiciary of Sudan because of a general fear for his life. 33. In order to exhaust local remedies within the spirit of Article 56 (5) of the [African] Charter, one needs to have access to those remedies, but if Mr Suleiman is constantly threatened, harassed and imprisoned, of course he would have no access to local remedies, they would be considered to be unavailable to him. 34. The National Security Act of 1994 introduces an unfortunate aspect of the inexistence of remedies by stipulating that: “no legal action or appeal is provided for against any decision issued under this law”. This manifestly makes the procedure less protective of the victim. 35. The right to an appeal is a right falling under the right to have one cause heard as provided under Article 7 of the Charter. The right of appeal is also a determinant for the fulfilment of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56 (5) of the [African] Charter. 36. It should be noted that the actual application of the law was also made difficult due to the state of emergency obtaining in the country during this period. The Complainants had difficulty to obtain justice and exhaust existing local remedies due to the political situation of the country. In this case, “it is reasonable to assume that not only the procedure of local remedies will be unduly prolonged, but also that it will yield no results” (see communication 129/94 Civil Liberties Organisation/Nigeria). 37. For the above reasons, the African Commission declares the communication admissible. 38. The African Commission wishes to acknowledge the information brought to its attention by the Respondent State outlining the development that the Government of Sudan had undertaken in respect of the constitutional reforms to guarantee the civil liberties of its citizens and the judicial system of the country. The African Commission hopes that with these changes, the judicial system will be able to handle matters relating to human rights abuses expeditiously. Merits 39. Article 9 of the Charter provides: “Every individual shall have the right to receive information. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law”.