32. With regards to Article 56(5), the Complainants aver that domestic remedies are ineffective when necessary investigations and prosecution have not taken place. The Complainants refer to Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe in which the Commission held that it is the role of the State to prosecute, and expecting Victims to pursue private prosecution is unfair. 33. The Complainants cited a European Court of Human Rights case, Selmouni v. France, which held that the Complainant satisfied the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, because the Government had failed to conduct an effective investigation. In making this finding, the Court determined that the burden lies on the Government to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. 34. The Complainants further contend that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies requires that only judicial remedies need to be exhausted, citing the Commission's jurisprudence in Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan. 35. The Complainants also refer to R.B v. Hungary, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that by lodging a criminal complaint with the police, the Victim had pursued an effective remedy, because there was no evidence that a proper investigation was "in principle not capable of leading to the identification and, if appropriate, punishment of those responsible." The Court further stated that "by virtue of that remedy, the State was afforded an opportunity to put matters right. 2 36. The Complainants further submit that domestic remedies are practically unavailable due to fear. In this regard, the Complainants cited Abubakar v. Ghana in which the Commission deemed local' remedies to be unavailable to the complainant after he escaped to Cote d'Ivoire, stating "the complainant was fleeing political persecution it would not be logical to ask the complainant to go back to Ghana in order to seek a remedy from national legal authorities." 3 Similarly in Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, the <;:om.mission emphasized that when the complainant cannot access the local remedies because of a generalized fear for his or her life, or that ·yes, the -::--'. 0 remedies would be eonsidered unavailable. -~~' ..,,l :cc,.~""'◄.._ / •J I,I...,, 1-i', ~ "1'1, , 37. The Complainants also aver that domestic remedies are practic , av , · · ble u : the particular circumstances of a survivor of human traffickin r O p s uf ex '9 exploitation, mis-identified as an illegal immigrant. In this reg d:i: e GQ1pl a;Q submit that a remedy cannot be available if it cannot be accesse ~ b ES 1 ~ ~ \.."-"' 2 Complamants submissions on Admissibility, paragraph 42 3 Complainants submissions on Admissibility, paragraph 43 7