Complainant's Response to the Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 64. In its additional observations on the admissibility submissions of the State, and in relation to Article 56(2) of the Charter, the Complainant reiterates the three requirements set out by the Commission in Mg-wanga et al. v Cameroon for a communication to be compatible with the Charter, as set out in paragraph 33 above. The Complainant submits that the first argument of the State under Article 56(2), namely that the Complainant was detained in accordance with due process of law, and was duly informed of the reasons for his arrest, does not relate to any of the three requirements and is rather an attempt to argue the merits at the admissibility stage. 65. The Complainant submits that the second argument of the State under Article 56(2), namely that the allegations of maltreatment in detention are unsubstantiated allegations which do not amount to a primn Jacie violation is rebutted not only by the Complainant's submissions but also the Commission's decision on seizure, which determined that there is a prima facie case. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State did not d ispute compliance with the other requirements under Article 56(2), and thus states that the Commission should find that these requirements were also met, and thus that the Complaint meets the requirements under Article 56(2). 66. The Complainant reiterates the three grounds on the basis of which he avers that local remedies under Article 56(5) do not have to be exhausted, namely i) the Respondent State failed to provide the Complainant with the right to habeas corpus, thus there was no effective remedy for arbitrary arrest and detention; ii) the immunity provisions in domestic law made remedies in relation to violations committed by the NISS officers and/ or police inadequate and ineffective; and iii) the inaction of the State in terms of taking investigative measures into the alleged abuses rendered local remedies ineffective. 67. In responding to the State's assertion that the Complainant has done nothing to exhaust local remedies and is merely casting aspersions on the ability of domestic remedies to succeed, the Complainant reiterates the meaning given by the Commission in its decision of Dnwda Jawara v The Gambia to 'available', 'effective' and 'sufficient', respectively meaning that it must be possible to be pursued without impediment, must offer a prospect of success and must be capable of addressing the complaint.13 68. The Complainant reiterates his arguments above that while in detention the Complainant had no opportunity to access an n.w:rJ:Fj:~--<u-,at e was unable to effectively challenge the legality of his <let ___..,,7- w...i.Krr-1. ubmits that he was unable to make a complaint against t] n the basis =r!f,,,-_ . lj ~ 13 Communication 147/95-149/96. \ ct ~ \;. 4 •·R1c,;.1l'l\ ~....,"--"'/ I: ET DE.5 l'tv -·- / 14 I P age