EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 64 Apart from casting aspersions on the effectiveness of local remedies, the complainant has not provided concrete evidence or demonstrated sufficiently that these apprehensions are founded and may constitute a barrier to it attempting local remedies. In the view of this Commission, the complainant is simply casting doubts about the effectiveness of the domestic remedies. This Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on every complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of, local remedies. It is not enough for the complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated or past incidences. […] The African Commission can therefore not declare the communication admissible based on this argument. If a remedy has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without trying to avail oneself of them, will simply not sway this Commission.46 66. In the present Communication, the African Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant only made generalised statements about the unavailability of local remedies in the Respondent State, without attempting to exhaust them. Accordingly, as was the situation in the Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia case, the African Commission concludes that the Complainant in the present Communication has not exhausted local remedies. 67. A waiver of the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter according to the African Commission’s jurisprudence47 is not automatic, except in cases of serious and massive violations of human rights. 68. Based on the above analyses, the African Commission is of the view that the Communication has not fulfilled the requirement set by Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. 69. Article 56 (6) of the African Charter stipulates that Communications should be “submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter.” The Complainant avers that the Communication has been submitted in a timely manner, from the date of the alleged violation, which is not contested by the Respondent State, thus the requirement under Article 56 (6) of the African Charter has been duly complied with. 70. Article 56 (7) of the African Charter stipulates that Communications should “not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter.” The Complainant avers that the Communication is not being considered by another international or regional mechanism, nor has it been previously settled by one, which 46 47 Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia para. 58 Also see Communication 201/97 – Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights v Egypt (2000) ACHPR, Communication 307/05 - Mr. Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) ACHPR, and Communication 308/05 - Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR.