23.1n the case Anuak Justice V Ethiopia? the African Commission held that "it is incumbent on every complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies." The Commission further underscored that 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. For instance, the fact that a Court has sentenced a four years old child to life imprisonment for allegedly committing a crime as the Complainants mentioned in their submission, cannot re.nder the whole judiciary dysfunctional as it is one of past incidences. The fact that one court gives such kind of decision does not mean all courts in the respondent state will have the same stand on the same issue. An error committed by the lower court can be corrected by the higher court. In any case the functionality of judiciary of a given state cannot be judged by an isolated incidence or the error committed by one court. iv.Decision on Admissibility 24.On the basis of all the above arguments and analysis, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child notes and concludes that the Communication submitted by the author has not fulfilled the admissibility conditions as laid down in the Charter and the Committee's Guidelines on Consideration of Communication; it fails to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The Communication is accordingly declared inadmissible. Done in May 2017 Benyam Dawit Mezmur Chairperson of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 2 See Anuak Justice Council V Ethiopia Communication no. 299/2005, para 50. 7