51. Article 56(5) requires that Communications be submitted after exhausting local
remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.
While the Complainant submits that he has exhausted all domestic remedies, the
Respondent State
submits
requirement.
State
The
that
the
submits
Complainant
that
the
had
not complied
Complainant
has
an
with
avenue
this
under
Section 4A of the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1998 to seek redress for the
alleged human rights violations through forwarding his grievances to the NHRC,
who
would
conduct
an
inquiry
as
to
whethe
the e
is
sufficient
fresh
and
compelling evidence and will thereafter ref r tlie matter to the Court of Criminal
Appeal. The Respondent State submits that a f ilure by the Complainant to avail
himself of this local remedy is a breath of"A tide 56(q) of tfie African Charter.
those
remedies
jurisdictions
exhausted."
remedies
which
and
The
there
are
normally
"ordinary
accessible
Commission
is
no
dutx
remedies· of
has
on
t,
held
tlie
people
that
'rn
comm
seeking
n
to
commissions such as a national human nglrls insti
that
justice"
exhausting
Cornplainan
law
have
ordinary
submit
cases
exist
to
to
in
be
domestic
national
tion (NHRI), even if they can
grant remedies, as they are "ll.,Oll;judicial in titutions", and Complainants only
have to exhaust judicial remedies.f For this reason the Commission holds that the
Respondent State's objection in this regard fails,
53. In additiori: the Complainant avers that he has appealed to both the Supreme
Court of Mauritius as well as ·
e Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and
that his appeals in both cases were dismissed. The Respondent State does not
provide any evidence of further judicial remedies which should be exhausted.
The
Commission
thus
finds
that
the
Complainan
·�xhausted
domestic
��ot"UM�\Ai,;,
judicial remedies and thus complies with Artie} 1il\;;l>�''"'" ''''.
:.,
rrl· �
�
'\
1
7
Communication
242/01
, Interights,
Institute for Human
Rights
Mauritanienne des Droits de /'Homme v Mauritania (2004) ACHPR para
•
}�t
'.
"F!l�lfy: .�
v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 003/2015, Judgment of 28 Sep1em
8
Africa,
and Association
mo Onyachi and Others
erZif17, para 56.
Communication 2 2 1 / 9 8 , Alfred B. Cudjoe v. Ghana (1999) ACHPR para 14; Communication 375/09, Priscilla
Njeri Echaria (represented by Federation o
f Women Lawyers, Kenya and International Center for the Protection o
f Human
Rights) v. Kenya (2011) ACHPR para 56. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v, Republic of
Kenya,
App.
No.
006/2012,
26
May
2017,
para
97;
ACHPR para 42.
11
Communication
268/03
, Ilesanmi v Nigeria
(2005)