."">\ ACHPR I (: ~ ;; African Commission on Human Rights OUI Collective Responsibility (';:rm.:l.~"" Human and Peoples' Bights predetermined action or omission that impacts on a right or a combination of rights guaranteed under the African Charter. 50. In this respect, notwithstanding the reference to the systematic and widespread violations of the rights of so-called political dissenters and Eritrean citizens in general, the Complainants are representing only a single Victim and not all political dissenters or citizens of Eritrea. As such, the Commission is called to determine whether the incommunicado detention of Berhane Abrehe Kidane, alone, violates the African Charter. The broader context serves as evidentiary material for that purpose but is itself not up for adjudication. At this stage, therefore, the question is whether the alleged violations stemming from the incommunicado detention of the Victim meet the requisite gravity and· scale threshold for exempting the Complainants from exhausting domestic remedies. 51. To that end, while the alleged ongoing incommunicado detention of the Victim may reveal grave or serious violations; of human rights'? the Commission is not convinced that the scale of the violations amounts to that which renders the exhaustion of domestic remedies impractical or undesirable. In all cases where the Commission has found an e~cepti61( to tH~'exha~s'tion rule in this respect, the alleged violations affected a large number of victims. Indeed, in Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of tiypt, the Commission found that the alleged violations of the rights of over 500 Victims failed to meet the threshold for massive" violations as the victims were 'all identifiable and their convictions could be individually appealed'". Accordingly, in the instant case, there is nothing to suggestthat exhausting domestic would be impractical or undesirable. As such, this Commission considers that the instant Communication does not reveal "serious" and ~/wassive" violations of human rights which would permit waiver of the exhaustion requirement. II 52. Having found that the alleged violations in this case do not meet the requisite scale threshold for permitting an exemption to the exhaustion requirement, the next consideration is whether there are other factors which nevertheless impede access to domestic remedies and or render them ineffective. In this respect, the Commission notes that the Complainants' second submission caa- also be understood as invoking the principle of futility. This principl~4'}i%$/F~here a I:.I.;::.~'; f/~ 17 18 See Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea, supra note 4, para. 55. Supra note IS, para. 173. ~ oc The African Commis 0 ) ... '. \..-'-/ 1'1 AU-UA J'3! ~ c., m!ff.Q\.-B~oples' Rights I1P~1!abillLi5'tStfi~t~*~_oast Phone: (2 Email: r .!I 0;..0 31 Bijilo Annex Layout. Kom '1'0 1.7 (J n ~ 'a \., An 0'9an of the AfriGan(~' ~~ Unlon\"ow;1 lr1 { ~ s~ . 2jb6¥3l3!l~x~(220) ~ Region 4410504 au-banii:Jl(a)africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.inVCl 0 a