communication was made to the authorities in The Gambia is insufficient to saddle it with responsibility for the actions of an individual, Mr Robert Collyer, mindful of a State’s responsibility for non-state actors as was held by the Commission in communication 74/92 Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme des Libertes/Chad. 32. In their reply, the respondent State denies that they were informed of the human rights abuses suffered by Isaac Banda at the hands of Robert Collyer. In their submission, the Respondent State stresses that there are legal avenues provided for within The Gambia that the Complainant should have utilised to obtain a remedy and that such avenues are not unduly prolonged. The Respondent State argues that failure of the Complainant to access these legal avenues render the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies as required under Article 56.5 of the African Charter. 33. The case for non-exhaustion of local remedies: • • • • • The Complainant was a minor The statement of facts in the brief shows how NGOs helped him (see paragraph 5). If he could be helped to return home, he could have been assisted to pursue a remedy in the courts of The Gambia. The likes of Mr Robert Collyer (as portrayed in the statement of facts), should be made to face the full rigours of the law. The Complainant was indigent/was unable to pay legal fees The response to (a) above applies mutatis mutandi The State did not offer any legal assistance to the Complainant There is no convincing evidence that the attention of the State was drawn to the plight of the victim of the alleged violation. The Complainant’s parents were in another country and were indigent The NGOs could have helped him (as indicated above). The Complainant is now residing in another State Instead of using the Commission as a court of first instance, Africa Legal Aid is advised to see what remedies are available in The Gambia and to exhaust them before coming to the Commission. 34. Since Mr Robert Collyer is presumably still in The Gambia, greater help in the protection of human rights will be given by ensuring that he does not continue the alleged ill treatment of minors he brings into the country. If he persists, the attention of the Government of The Gambia should be drawn to his conduct, and the appropriate steps taken to address the issue 35. It is not in all cases that residence outside the jurisdiction will not require exhaustion of local remedies, as was held in103/93 Alhassan Abubakar/Ghana. In that case, the Complainant had been detained without trial for years, and he escaped from detention. He also feared that he would lose his liberty if he were to return to Ghana. 36. Reliance is also placed on the Commission’s decision in 215/98 Rights International/Nigeria. But that case is also distinguishable from the instant case. In that case, the Complainant alleged that Mr Charles Bandiorn Wiwa, a Nigerian student, was arrested and tortured at a Nigerian military detention camp. He was horsewhipped and placed in a cell with 40 other detainees. The Complainant claimed that the victim’s torture resulted from his identification as a relative of Ken Saro-Wiwa, who had been executed in defiance of the Commission’s request for a stay of execution under its provisional measures procedure in Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure. 37. Having fled Nigeria in fear for his life and on the advice of human rights lawyers, and having obtained asylum from the government of the United States of America, the Commission did not consider the exhaustion of local remedies arose in the circumstances. The Commission in that case stated: “In this particular case, the Commission found that Mr Wiwa was unable to pursue any domestic remedy following his flight for fear of his life to the Republic of Benin and the subsequent granting of refugee status to him by the United States of America.” Significantly, the Commission also stated categorically inparagraph 23 of communication 215/98, Rights International/Nigeria as follows: “The Commission declared the communication admissible on grounds that there was lack of available and effective remedies for human rights violations in Nigeria under the military regimes”.