25. The Complainants submit they have attempted to exhaust local remedies in Eritrea. They state th th that on 26 November 2001 and on 9 April 2002, they submitted a habeas corpus request through the Eritrean Minister of Justice asking the Eritrean Authorities to disclose where the 11 detainees were being held and why. The complainants also requested that the detainees be brought to court and charged in accordance with the law, however, there was no response to their request. A similar th request was made on 26 June 2002 (which is after the African Commission was seized of their complaint) to the Eritrean High Court in Asmara to which there was no reply either. rd 26. In her oral submissions during the 33 Ordinary Session of the African Commission, Zegveld stated that in an attempt to access the local courts, they had requested locally based legal practitioners (whom she declined to name) to bring the matter before the local courts. However, the said lawyers later informed her that they would not be able to pursue the detainees’ case in the domestic courts for fear of persecution by the authorities and for fear of jeopardising their legal practice. 27. The Complainants further submit that for more than 18 months, the 11 detainees have been held in detention without formal charges and with no access to their lawyers or families thus rendering them unable to seek legal or administrative redress. Furthermore, there has been no response from the government of Eritrea or High Court of Asmara, in relation to the Complainants’ requests of th th 26 November 2001 and 9 April 2002. 28. Under the circumstances presented above, the Complainants aver that the requirement to exhaust local remedies can no longer apply because even where such remedies would have been existent they have been unduly prolonged in this case. 29. The Complainants refer the African Commission to a decision of the European Court of Human 1 Rights in Ocalan v. Turkey where the court held that Ocalan’s isolation and the fact that the Turkish police obstructed his access to lawyers made it impossible for the applicant to have effective recourse to a domestic remedy under Turkish Law. 30. In its written submissions, the Respondent State argues that the Complainants addressed their habeas corpus request to the Minister of Justice who is a member of the Executive branch with no capacity to address and take decisions on this matter either in substance or in procedure. They submit that only the judiciary has the authority to take action on any civil, criminal and other issues of judicial nature including, the matter of habeas corpus. rd 31. During the 33 Ordinary Session, the Representative of the Respondent State submitted that to date the complainants have not submitted themselves to the courts in Eritrea. He informed the African Commission that he had personally checked with the High Court of Asmara to establish whether the matter had been brought to the court’s attention but there was no case file on this matter. 32. The Representative of the Respondent State argues that the Complainants’ assertion that they have not been able to access the domestic courts is speculative. He stated that Zegveld should accredit herself to the courts in Eritrea to enable her bring this matter before the local courts. 33. The Respondent State further submits that they have been unable to bring the 11 detainees before a court of law because of the nature of the criminal justice system in Eritrea. The Representative of the Respondent State informed the African Commission that the criminal justice system in Eritrea was inherited from Ethiopia and is therefore lacking. Within the High Court of Asmara, there is only one chamber responsible for handling criminal cases including criminal matters from the lower courts. As such, the Court’s calendar is highly congested and difficult to manage. Therefore cases are bound to take time before they are heard by the courts and this is the very reason for the delay in bringing the matter of the 11 detainees before a court of law. 34. There are exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the Complainants have argued that they could not exhaust the domestic remedies because the domestic legislation of Eritrea does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights that have allegedly been violated. 35. At this stage, it should be made clear that, when a person is being held in detention and accused for committing a crime, the African Commission holds that it is the responsibility of the Member State, through its appropriate judicial bodies, to bring this person promptly before a competent court of law in order to enable him/her to be tried in accordance with rules guaranteeing the right to a fair trial in accordance with national and international standards.