second occasion after her release from detention when she was arrested at Khartoum airport by the security agents of the Respondent State. The Respondent State has not submitted any steps to investigate the threats against the Complainants or any measures taken to ensure their safety when they were in the Respondent State, which could have enabled them to pursue local remedies. The Complainants submitted that the lawyers who represented the victims in the domestic proceedings have been subjected to threats and persecution. Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that it would be "repugnant to expect anyone within Sudan who sympathises with the cause of the victims to file a Complaint on their behalf before the r vant state organs."38 existence of a remedy PI1~\lPtJice, failing which, it will remedies would be 89. In Communications 147/95-149/96, the must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory' lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. unavailable if the applicant cannot turnto hiscoun fear for his life (or even his relativesr:~93 90. In the present case, domestic generalised fear for their lives, of the Respondent Stat~;.therefore, of the African Charter.' because of the territory with Article 56 (5) 91. Given the above, the 56 of the Afric~n Charter. Commission's Rules of Procedure. unication Admissible per Article o submit on Merit under the '-VjU_U~ ::IT!;.,",TrIP MERITS' 92. In th ' ,,:~~tiB,this Co~munication;J;'the Commission is called upon to determine wheth l\~~healfeg~:ct·,acts or omissions by the State or its agents are a violation of rights under the ter, specifically Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 18. 93. The Responden i£tate did not file submissions on merit. The Communication is, therefore, considered ex parte based on the submission by the Complainants. The Commission remains guided in this by its previous positions in the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola40 and the analogous decisions to the