58. The Respondent State further submits that the claims by the Complainant that there is an “information blackout” and that the Eritrean Judiciary lacks independence are unfounded as they are not substantiated by concrete examples indicating that there has been no interference in the actual work of the judges and in the dispensation of justice in the country. With respect to the dismissal of the Chief Justice, the Respondent State argues that in Eritrea the President appoints the 6 Chief Justice and therefore has the power to dismiss him. 59. Article 52 of the Eritrean Constitution provides for the removal and suspension of judges. SubArticle 1 provides that a judge may be removed from office before the expiry of his tenure of office by the President only, acting on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, pursuant to the provisions of sub-Article 2 of this Article for physical or mental incapacity, violation of the law or [J]udicial [C]ode of [E]thics. Sub-Article 2 provides that the Judicial Service Commission shall investigate whether or not a judge should be removed from office on grounds of those enumerated in sub-Article 1 of this Article. In case the Judicial Service Commission decides that a judge should be removed from office, it shall present its recommendation to the President. And sub-Article 3 provides that the President may, on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, suspend from office a judge who is under investigation. The State did not indicate whether these procedural safeguards had been followed but simply intimated that the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and can be dismissed by the President. th 60. In his oral submission during the 35 Ordinary Session, the representative of the Respondent State reiterated that the allegations made by the Complainant were false and unfounded as they had been made without any serious attempts by the Complainants to ascertain the facts before bringing the matter before the African Commission. Furthermore, the Complainants had not submitted themselves to the courts in Eritrea and as such it is the responsibility of the Complainant to find ways and means of utilising the domestic courts prior to bringing the matter before the African Commission. He reminded the African Commission that all conditions of Article 56 must be met in order for a matter to be admitted and if any one of the conditions is not met, the communication must be declared inadmissible. 61. The representative of the Respondent State informed the African Commission that the incarcerated journalists had been arrested by the police and were being held by executive authorities. However, following investigation, an administrative decision was reached to release two of the journalists and that the decision with respect to the remaining incarcerated journalists would be forthcoming. 62. He conceded that the detainees on whose behalf this communication is brought have not been brought before a court of law because of the nature of the criminal justice system in Eritrea. He stated that the criminal justice system in Eritrea does not have the institutional capacity to handle cases expeditiously and as such there is huge backlog of cases in all the courts in the country. 63. The Respondent State further stated that contrary to the claims by the Complainant that they were not able to visit Eritrea in order to assist the victims, everyone who was involved in the matter relating to the detained journalists and the political detainees was invited to Eritrea including the Complainant who chose not to visit the country. Decision of the African Commission on admissibility 64. To determine the question of admissibility of this communication, the African Commission will have to answer, among others, the following questions -: • • • • who is required under the African Charter to exhaust local remedies – the author of the communication or the victim of the alleged human rights violations?; does the removal of a Chief Justice render domestic remedies unavailable and insufficient?; does the fact that a State has failed to abide by its own laws render domestic remedies “hopeless, impractical and unreasonable?”; does the communication reveal massive and serious violations of human and peoples’ rights?; and