~C":~)ACHPR 4' mHO;' African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rinhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility exhaust the remedy presented by the EHRC since it may be available, but it is not effective and sufficient.P 65. The Commission notes the Respondent State's contention that its national courts are also available for the Complainants to have approached before bringing a Compliant to the Commission. The Complainants provide at least four reasons why they consider the courts in the Respondent State to be remedies that are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient. The Complainants allege that the Victims and the NGOs which could have acted on their behalf fear that there will be consequences for bringing an action against the government before the courts. 66. The Complainants also allege that the courts are physically and financially inaccessible to the Victims. While they concede that access to the courts have improved since 2004, the Complainants insist that the Victims cannot afford to engage a lawyer and no member of their communitiesjs a lawyer. It is also submitted that the Respondent State's legal system does not have any procedure for claiming collective rights. The Complainants have also alleged that by the operation of the Ethiopian Charities and Societies Proclamation, foreign NGOs cannot enter into the territory of the Respondent State to litigate on behalf of the Victims. 67. The Commission recalls its early jurisprudence that in certain conditions where terror and fear exist it would be illogical to require the exhaustion of local remedies.l+ Fear of reprisals against Victims and/ or their lawyers is sufficient evidence that local remedies are not accessible. In the present Communication, the Commission notes that the Complainants cite reports of the Campaign for Reform of the World Bank and Amnesty International regarding an alleged general climate of fear prevailing among civil society groups in the Respondent State. However, the Complainants do not adduce any evidence of specific threat to the Victims or anyone acting on their behalf regarding an attempt to approach the courts over the facts leading to the present Complaint. 68. As the Commission noted in Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia= beyond statements of apprehension based on general reports, the Complainant needs to adduce concrete evidence and demonstrate that the apprehension alleged is founded on actual risk. Against the fact that the Complainants have failed to offer any evidence that there is a basis for the alleged fear, the Commission is unable to