remedies. For this reason, the Commission objects to this contention by the Respondent State. 70.Furthermore, the rationale behind the requirement to exhaust local remedies is set out in [auiara v Gambia which spelled out that " ... before proceedings are brought before an international body, the State concerned must have had the opportunity to remedy the matter through its own local system. This prevents the Commission from acting as a court offirst instance rather than a body of last resort. "11. Another rationale is that a government should have notice of a human rights violation in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violation, before being called to account by an international tribunal." In the same case, the Commission established that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment." 71.The test for availability underlines the prospect of success, and also requires that the system operates in a manner that would enable an effective, impartial adjudication of the matter. However, without attempting to utilise mechanisms that exists, or justifying why they could not be utilised makes ascertaining the outcome challenging. 72. In the present Communication, after the Complainant was released following the decision of the Court of Appeal, he had the opportunity, within a period of two years from the time of his release (July 2015 to July 2017) to claim for damages/ reparation under the POPA 1957. 73.The Commission has examined the POPA 1957,and according to Section 4(i) of the same: (1) Even) civil or criminal action, suit, or proceeding, by a person, other than the State, for any fact, act or omission, against a (a) public officer in the execution of his duh;; (b) person engaged or employed in the performance of any public dub]; or (c) person acting in aid or assistance of the public officer or pe1'son mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), shall, under pain of nullitij, be instituted within 2 years from the date of the fact, act, or omission which has given rise to the action, suit, or other proceeding. 74. According to the Complainant, he couldn't pursue this avenue because he could not afford a Lawyer. The Commission however notes that the Complainant does not demonstrate in the Complaint, steps he had taken towards securing a Lawyer to assist with filing the claims against the State. Merely stating that he could not afford a Lawyer and that remedies were, therefore, not available in that regard, does not sway this Commission, 11