persecution on the part of the Complainant. 49. In a number of cases the African Commission has used the standard of constructive exhaustion of local remedies to provide an exception to the rule. Fear of persecution is one of the exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. In Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia10 the African Commission reasoned that "the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the applicant cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because of generalised fear for his life (or even those of his relatives), local remedies would be considered to be unavailable to him". 50. In Rights International v Nigeria11 and John D Ouoko v Kenya12 , the African Commission reasoned that the existence of apparent fear of persecution on the part of the victims, to return to their countries to exhaust local remedies would make the remedies not available to such persons and hence exempt them from the requirement to exhaust those remedies. 51. In the present Communication, the fact that the Complainant has no legal standing before Angolan courts, that most of its members live abroad and are considered terrorists by the Government, leads to the conclusion that the chances of the Complainant exhausting local remedies have been practically rendered impossible by fear of prosecution. 52. Therefore, the African Commission holds that local remedies were not available to the Complainant and hence rules that the Communication is in line with the requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 53. For the above reasons, the African Commission declares the Communication admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter. Consideration of the Merits Summary of Complaint's Submission 54. The Complainant emphasises that the present Communication concerns itself strictly with a claim for economic self-determination of the people of Cabinda and in particular with the disposition and exploitation of onshore oil, mineral and natural resources. 55. The Complainant states further that the Communication excludes the matter of offshore resource allocation and relates only to the extraction of onshore resources which has remained dormant due largely to FLEC's armed opposition to any such exploitation. The Complainant contends that it does not recognise grants of resource extraction licences and concessions made by the Respondent State and asserts that it reserves the right to make its own arrangements with resource extraction companies upon the "decolonisation" of Cabinda. 56. Based on its contention that it has been recognised as the legitimate representative of the Cabinda people since 1974, the Complainant requests that the Commission to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the issue of Cabinda's economic self-determination on the grounds that the Respondent State has violated Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter. 57. The Complainant argues that as an incident of the right to property under Article 14 of the African Charter, the natural resources of Cabinda remain the property of the people of Cabinda and must be administered largely for the benefit of the people of Cabinda. Accordingly, the grant of licences and concession for the extraction of onshore natural resources by the Respondent State is a violation of Article 14 of the African Charter. 58. It is the further contention of the Complainant that although a state can grant resource extraction rights in the name of its people, a grant made in cases where one people dominate another or a grant made or administered in an irresponsible manner would be illegitimate. The Complainant argues that historically, Cabinda has always maintained a separate identity, linguistically and otherwise, and the people of Cabinda were neither consulted on the 'unilateral termination of Portuguese colonial protectorate' nor did they ratify 'the Angolan occupation' of Cabinda. 59. The Complainant states that since 1974 it has 'maintained a civil government inside portions of Cabinda' and many of the areas of resource extraction 'are in or near the FLEC zone'. Further, that since the people of Cabinda are distinct, the Respondent State is not entitled to unilaterally grant resource extraction licences or concessions in violation of the right to property of the people of Cabinda as contained in Article 14 of the African Charter. 60. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 19 of the African Charter, the Complainant contends that 5