64. Article 56(4) of the Charter provides that communications should not be ' ... based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media.' The Commission has ascertained that the Communication is not exclusively based on news disseminated through the mass media but on factual evidence submitted by the Complainant through his personal experience, in accordance with Article 56 (4) of the African Charter. 65. Article 56(5) of the Charter, stipulates that: "Communications shall be considered if they are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged ... " II 66. The Complainant submits that he has exhausted all local remedies, and that he couldn't file for claims against the Respondent State for his unfair/wrongful arrest and detention due to his indigent status, no income to afford a Lawyer and therefore remedies are not available to him. The State on the other hand, refutes the Complainant's arguments, arguing that (1) the Complainant should have approached the NHRC for redress, and (2), the Complainant did not engage any proceedings in relation to his claim in Mauritius even though he had the opportunity to do so under the POP A. 67. Regarding the first contention by the Respondent State about taking the matter to the NHRC, the Commission has repeatedly stated that Article 56(5) refers to remedies that are of a judicial nature, thus a Complainant is not required to pursue remedies that are non-judicial in nature." 68. Judicial remedies include remedies that a court of law may enforce and therefore, utilising non-judicial remedies are not considered exhausting local remedies. Specifically, in Alfred B Cudjoe v. Ghana/ while the Complainant was granted a decision in his favour by the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission, the Commission found that" the internal remedy to which Article 56(5) refers entails remedy sought from courts of ajudicial nature, which the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission is clearly not," thus declaring the Communication inadmissible. on its previous jurisprudence, including Digbeejaye Koonjul v where the Respondent State made a similar argument, the Commission holds that in exhausting ordinary domestic remedies there is no duty on the Complainant to submit cases to national commissions such as a National Human Rights Institution, even if they can grant remedies, as they are non-judicial institutions, and Complainants only have to exhaust judicial 69. Relying Mauritius'? 8 See Communication 375/09- Priscilla Njeri Echaria (represented by Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya and International Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v. Kenya, paras. 53-55; Communication 221/98-Alfred B. Cudjoe v. Ghana, paras. 12-14 9 Communication 221/98-Alfred B Cudjoe v. Ghana para 13 /~:;;:'~L-;;';-;;;'~:i., 10 n 3 above-Communication 569/15-Digbeejaye KoonjuI v Mauritius, par '~'·s?,,:.r.~~;".C_\.... o ,.. 'I ~. I .~I 10