that they are immune from suit, and was denied the right to habeas corpus, thus asserting there are legal impediments which prevented him from seeking a remedy before the domestic courts. The Complainant also reiterates that the State had knowledge of the alleged violations since it was published in the media and known to the UN Independent Expert on the Human rights situation in Sudan, amongst others, from the early stages of his detention. 69. In relation to the assertion of the State that an investigation is ongoing, the Complainant submits that the State does not provide sufficient information about the terms of reference of the investigation, whether witnesses had been heard, which evidence had been produced and whether there had been any findings. In addition, the Complainant submits that neither he nor his lawyer were aware of or contacted in relation to the investigations, stating that even if there is such an investigation, it does not provide an effective remedy. 70. The Complainant in addition submits that while the State refers to a number of judicial bodies, including the Constitutional Court, and states that these are easily accessible, effective and independent, in the case of Article 19 v Eritrea, the Commission has held that to demonstrate the availability, effectiveness and sufficiency of the remedies, the State cannot just list "in abstracto the existence of remedies without relating them to the circumstances of the case and without showing how they might provide effective redress in the circumstances of the case."14 71. In relation to the submission of the State that habeas corpus was an available remedy, the Complainant submits that the State misrepresented the argument of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that while he never contested that habeas corpus exists under Sudanese law, the Complainant had argued that the legal framework under which he was arrested, namely the Emergency and Protection of Public Safety Act, did not provide for hnbeas corpus, permitting preventative arrest and detention without judicial oversight. In addition he submits that there was no record of his arrest or detention, making it impossible to establish who was responsible for his arrest and detention, and that he had no access to a lawyer for more than 20 days of his arrest and that he was at no point brought before a judge, and given that habeas corpus cases need to be dealt with promptly, he submits that this failed to serve as an effective remedy. He further submits that the State had failed to relate the provision of the Constitutional Court Act providing for habeas corpus with the Emergency laws and the current facts.