the massive nature of the violation leads to the presumption that the State is aware of the violation that is taking place.12 The Committee concurs with the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights that the scale and the nature of the alleged human rights violations make local remedies unavailable as it becomes impractical or undesirable for the Complainants to exhaust local remedies.13 24. Moreover, the Complainants argue that the primary local remedy involves criminal investigation and prosecution, which is the responsibility of the Respondent State, and that the Complainants allege a lack of due diligences on the part of the later. In such circumstances, the Committee, as established in its jurisprudence in the Talibes case, finds that local remedies ae ineffective and unavailable in practice.14 Furthermore, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has consistently ruled that "Whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the State on its initiative, the State has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases, one cannot demand that the complainants or the victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the State to investigate the facts and bring the accused persons to court in accordance with both domestic and international fair trial standards. Instead, by failing to properly investigate a criminal matter of which it has been notified and to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion within a reasonable time, a State "forfeit[s] its prerogative to deal with the matter domestically.’’15 25. In the present Communication, the Committee notes that criminal proceedings against perpetrators are the main local remedy available and notes from the allegation of the Complainants that the Respondent State has not portrayed due diligence in the prosecution of perpetrators, which in effect renders local remedies ineffective to the concerned children. Considering the above reasonings, the Committee holds that the Complainants are exempted from the requirement to exhaust local remedies. 26. The fifth condition of admissibility spelt out under Section IX (1) (e) of the Communications Guidelines is that a Communication has to be submitted within a reasonable time after exhausting local remedies. The Committee notes that the Complainants rely on an exception to the exhaustion requirement. Moreover, the 12 13 14 15 As above ACHPR, Communication No. 279/03 – 296/05, Sudan Human Rights Organization & Centre on Human Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, (2003) paras. 94, 97, 100; ACHPR, Communciation No. 25/89-47/90-56/91-100/93, Free Legal Assistance Group, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme, Les Témoins de Jehovah v DRC, (1995) para. 35-38; ACHPR, Communication No. 338/07, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2010) para. 67. ACERWC, Communication no 003/Com/003/2012, The Centre for Human Rights (University of Pretoria) and la Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme (on behalf of Talibes children) v Senegal, Decision No 003/ Com/001/2012, para 22-23 ACHPR, Communication No 275/2003, Article 19 v Eritrea, (2007) para 72; ACHPR, Communication no 386/10, Dr Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim v Sudan, (2013) para 48 8