rule of exhaustion of local remedies, this Committee takes into account the circumstances of each case, including the general context in which the formal remedies operate and the personal circumstances of the complainant. 17.As established by ACERWC, the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is only with regard to remedies, which are 'available, effective and sufficient'. The question that begs answer in the present communication is whether it can be concluded that local remedies in the Respondent State are not available, ineffective or insufficient based on the allegations made by the complainant. 18.1n the present case, the Complainants did not attempt to exhaust local remedies. The Complainants are arguing that there are no local remedies to be exhausted. 19.1n their submission, the Complainant argued that the State is well aware of the series of serious and massive human rights violations occurring and has taken little or no steps to remedy those violations. According to the Complainants, these impediments render local remedies unavailable to the victims. 20.The Complainants further submitted that the Egyptian judiciary has been used by the regime as a tool of repression against many citizens including the vulnerable. Noting that recently a Court has sentenced a four years old child to life imprisonment for allegedly committing a crime 2 years ago and on the basis of other reported incidents, the complainant argued that there is no functioning judicial system in the respondent state. 21.Aithough the Complainant argued that the State is well aware of the series of serious and massive human rights violations occurring in the respondent state, they did not adduce any evidence to prove this allegation. A mere allegation cannot be held to be adequate enough to the respondent state responsible. From the submission of the Complainants, it cannot be concluded that the state is well aware about the wrongs done to the victim. In this regard, the Committee is not convinced by the submission of the Complainants. 22.On the other hand, as outlined above, the Complainants alleged that there is no functioning judiciary in the respondent state as it has been used by the regime as a tool of repression. Apart from casting vilification on the function of judiciary, the Complainants have not buttressed their argument. In other words, they could not prove sufficiently that this allegation is well founded. In the view of the Committee, the Complainants are simply casting doubts about the effectiveness/existence of the domestic remedies. In the case A V Australia,1it has been noted that "mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or the prospect of financial costs involved did not absolve an author from pursuing such remedies." 1 See the UN Human Right Committee A v. Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, para 6.4. 6