ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Hesponsibititv complainant firmly establishes that the domestic court or authority will inevitably dismiss a claim or when a positive result is impossible due to past court rulings, state inaction, or danger in seeking out the remedy. Indeed, the Commission has previously found that complainants are not required to exhaust domestic remedies that objectively have no chance of success 19. This principle speaks to the effectiveness or otherwise of a domestic remedy. 53. In this respect, the Complainants have argued that they could not file for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the Victim as doing so ""i~;tlldrequire employing a legal representative based in Eritrea, an untenable. option considering the risk to the personal safety and career of such person. In this same vein, they argue that the courts in Eritrea would ignore any habeas corpus applic,ationJiled before them as doing otherwise would jeopardise the career and pe~~itmial 'saf~"t~B£theresponsible judges. 54. On this claim, the Commission is reluctant to admit blanket P!oclamations that absolve Complainants from even attempting to exhaust domestic remedies. While this Commission takes note of the findings of the COl concerning the alleged climate of fear and impunity in Eritrea, the Commission is mindful that political instability though regrettable is' .not uncommon. Indeed, the Commission has declared numerous Communications inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies notwithstanding the political upheavals described therein". In this case, the Complainants are based outside Eritrea and could have sought the assistance of any number.of legal representatives towards filing their writ. They have not firmly established that all the available legal representatives in Eritrea are reluctant to file such applications due to fear of persecution or that the Courts will always ignore such appli~ations. 55. The Complainants referred the Commission to the three Communications against Eritrea, mentioned in paragraph 26 supra, as evidence of impediments created by the climate of fear and impunity. In those Communications, they argue that legal representatives in Eritrea refused to assist in filing for a writ of habeas corpus and that applications filed by the complainants were nevertheless ignored. Notably, two of the three Communications referenced were decided more than ten years , / 19 ~-:-... 0\1 \\U:.1A/J-1 See for example Communication 368/09 (2013), Abdel Hadi, Ali Radi & Others 1rIRrjp~bJfE-ror§tlda~f,,,<. particularly paras 46-49. /.~'~ . . -e .... I' Supra note 15; see also Communication 340/07 - Nixon Nyikadzino (representec{1fI1 Zi a?J7tfma) "'. Rights NG.O.. Forum) v Zimbabuie (2014) ACHPR. o (... "/~ 20 An°f,gaf~Ofthe .' A ncan ((~1 Union ~lo1 'I~ (!}t ,~S. AU-UA ~te<f. 1 ~~ 0 ;;; The African CommiSSio~n ~ ~ights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout. Kombo ~!il[tQ P~1r~tR~~ttCb~Region Phone: (220j·~t~P,.1fFE'1X~P-~0:)V~:1 0504 Email: au-bafi-l'iJt@Jlfr:l:G'lH1nlon.org https:lachpr,au.intiO 0 III