28. Regarding the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainants contend that the Complaint was brought before the Commission after the Victims exhausted the local domestic remedies, however they did not obtain relief. The Complainants aver that Article 56(5) is one of the most important conditions for the admissibility of Communications, as it gives the State concerned the opportunity to remedy the alleged violation through its domestic legal system. In support of this, the Complainants cite the Commission’s decision in Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia.2 29. The Complainants submit that domestic remedies exist in the Respondent State, noting that the Article 129(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (the Constitution) makes provisions for judicial power to be exercised by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and other subordinate Courts thereto. 30. The Complainants aver that the Victims have engaged these judicial institutions, noting that the Victims, along with the other suspects, applied for bail, and bail orders were made by the High Court. 31. Further, the Complainants note that the Victims petitioned the Constitutional Court for the following declarations and orders: that the Victims are entitled to a fair and impartial trial; their continued detention after the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 18 of 2005 declared the concurrent trial in the High Court and Court Martial in violation of their right to personal liberty; and lastly that, the General Court Martial, in ignoring the decision of the Constitutional Court and the continued detention of the 14 bailed petitioners, acts in an inconsistent manner with Article 128(3) of the Constitution, and therefore is in contravention of the principle of the independence of the Judiciary. 32. The Complainants submit that the Victims have exhausted these local remedies, and further submit that the national Courts resolved the issues in the applicants favour. However the Complainants contend that the court orders have not been respected by the Executive arm of Government, which has employed the police and military to deny the Victims of their right to liberty, fair and impartial trial, and to frustrate the various court orders. 33. The Complainants submit that, in consecutive order, the following release and declaratory orders have been pronounced; however submit that none has been implemented: (a) (b) (c) (d) 2 Bail application No. 201 of 2005, pronounced on 16 November 2005; Constitutional Court Petition No. 18 of 2005, pronounced on 31 January 2006; Constitutional Court Petition No. 12 of 2006, pronounced on 12 January 2007; Review of Bail application No. 20 of 2007. Communication 147/95,149/96: Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gambia (2000) ACHPR para 30-31 5