Complainants letter dated 22 February 2021, and decided to grant the Complainants an extension of one (1) month to submit on the Merits. 66. By letter dated 18 October 2021, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainants letter dated 8 August 2021, informing the Secretariat of the new legal representative of the Victim (i.e. Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors, in United Kingdom) and forwarding the Complainants submissions on the Merits of the Communication. 67. By Note Verbale dated 18 October 2021, the · Secretari?tt forwarded the submissions on the Merits to the Respondent State and requested its observations on the Merits within two (2) months of the notification thereof. 68. A decision on the Merits of the Commission was deferred from the 70 th to 78 th Ordinary Sessions of the Commission. The Law on Admissibility Complainants Submission on Admissibility 69. The Complainants submit that the Communication meets the Admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and focused its submissions exclusively on the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Accordingly, the Complainants submit that in the present Communication, domestic remedies were unavailable, ineffective and insufficient; thus, the Victim was not bound to exhaust local remedies before bringing the Communication to the Commission. 70. The Complainants aver that in Sir Dwada K. Jawara v The Gambia, the Commission recognized that domestic remedies must be available, effective and sufficient and further stated that: "a remedy is available if the petitioner 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". 2 71 . The Complainants submit that in Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia, the Commission held that a remedy which exists in theory but is only available to those who can afford to access it will not be considered effective. 3 The Complainants further submit that in Alhassan Abubakar vs. Ghana, Sir 2 .-,:;:w; ,:.· fl Communication 147/ 95 and 149/96 -Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia, paras 31, 32. 3 Communication 241/2001- Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia, paras 34 - 37. ~~"'~e,P.ET 0 v -~ '•1 ' ~> n ·- \ ~~ 0 ri . 4 ~