(~~\ACHPR t' ',j t . ctJ.1.l..t::c ' Afncan Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 52. Article 56 of the African Charter requires the Communication to satisfy the seven Admissibility conditions listed therein. The Conunission notes that the Parties have not proffered any arguments on the requirements in Article 56 (1)(2)(3)(4)(6) and (7). However, the Commission's own assessment of the Communication indicates that the conditions in those provisions are satisfied. Accordingly, the Commission's analysis will focus on the requirement to exhaust local remedies as set out in Article 56 (5) of the Charter. 53. Article 56(5) of the African Charter provides that Communications received by the Commission shall be considered if the 'are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that the procedure is unduly prolonged'. As the Commission has previously indicated, where local remedies are available, effective and sufficient, the onus to exhaust such local remedies or demonstrate that they have been exhausted or attempted lies on the author of a Communication." 54. The Complainant in the present Communication does not claim to have exhausted or even attempted to exhaust any local remedies in the Respondent State. Instead, the Complainants have argued that it should be exempted from the requirement to exhaust local remedies because in its opinion, effective and sufficient local remedies are not available to the Victims in the Respondent State. 55. The Respondent State disputes the claim that local remedies are not available and asserts instead that effective local remedies exist and should first have been utilised by the Complainants. 56. The Commission recalls that where a State Party asserts that effective and sufficient local remedies are available within its legal system, the onus is on that State Party to prove the assertion+ In Zimbabwe Launjers for Human Rights and Another v Zimbabwe, this Commission noted that where a Complainant claims that local remedies did not have to be exhausted because they are ineffective, unavailable or insufficient without the need for proof on the part of the Complainant, a burden is imposed on the Respondent State to prove the contrary." The Respondent State 'must then show that the remedy is available, effective and sufficient'." It is only after the Respondent State has established the existence of effective and sufficient remedies that the burden shifts back to the 7 As above. An Organ of Ihe AfriGan~~."~~)'\ UnIOn~~k( 10