there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed." 52. The Complainants argue that in South Sudan, there is no effective system for accountability that can promptly prevent the police from misusing their powers and holding them responsible for misusing such powers against civilians. The policing system has failed to discourage police misconduct against the complainants as they are aware there is no accountability. There is no promising procedure that a civilian can pursue to find justice for police misconduct. 53. They dirge that they have no prospects of the case going further given the shocking level of impunity that the perpetrators enjoy, to the extent of going free even after attacking the Lologo II police station and threatening to kill a Public Prosecutor on 14/01/2022. They aver that the law enforcement in Lologo II and the military police impeded the administration of justice and rendered the criminal justice system dysfunctional, thereby. ITlCl.king al] attempts to exhaust local remedy impossible and met with further":Kuinan rights violations. The Respondent State was made aware of the violations through appropriate complaint procedures and that the Respondent.State bad the ample.oRPortunity to address the violations as it exercises unlimited.,control and supe~vision over the Forces, but did not do so. , , 54. They appeal to the Commission's longstanding precedent which find that a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, and that it-is deemed.effective if it otters a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing complaints; they aver that this and the exception of Article 56(5) are applicable to this Communication. They urge the Commission, in analyzing these situations and the question of effectiveness and availability of local remedy, to also consider the general situation in South Sudan and refer to its past resolutions on the human rights situation in South Sudan and to declare the Communication admissible. the Respondent State's Submission on Admissibility 55. The Secretariat.did no.t::¥~cei:ve any observation or any correspondence on the Complainants' Submissions, from the Respondent State on Admissibility. Commission's Analysis on Admissibility 56. The Commission is not deterred from considering the issue of the admissibility of a Communication, where a State has failed to make its submissions. In such a situation the Commission will proceed based on the information or any material pertaining to the Communication and/ or submissions by the Complainant.? In this regard the Commission will consider and determine whether on the material before it, the Complaint is admissible or not.