individual police officers are immune from civil suits unless their immunity has been lifted. They conclude that because no investigation against the alleged perpetrators has been initiated by the Respondent State, there is no possibility of initiating a private prosecution or a civil suit against them, hence local remedies are ineffective and cannot be pursued without impediment. It is also the Complainants' argument that the Respondent State had ample notice of the events complained of and that the collective nature of arrests and the violations that followed make it impossible to effectively pursue any remedies that might exist. 43. The Respondent State on the other hand argues that the Complainants failed to exhaust local remedies. According to the Respondent State, by submitting their complaint to the Directorate of Police, the Complainants failed to pursue the right procedure and did not approach any court. On the issue of immunity granted to police officers, the Respondent State submits that this is a mere procedural immunity granted to them for the purpose of accomplishing their duties, which immunity could be lifted after a preliminary investigation. It is also argued that the Complainants had the option of approaching the Constitutional Court by virtue of Article 35 of the 2005 Interim Constitution which provides for the right to litigation. 44. The Commission has in its jurisprudence consistently reiterated the necessity and rationale of the exhaustion of local remedies rule as a means of enabling a State against which a Complaint is brought, to be given the opportunity to deal with the claim using its own judicial and administrative procedures, before being called before an international body 8 . It also serves as a means of giving the State notice of events occurring within its territory. 45. The Commission notes that allegations of torture against public officials impose an immediate duty on the State to initiate a prompt, impartial and effective investigation in order to establish the veracity of these allegations and bring the perpetrators to justice if the allegations are founded. 9 . The Commission also notes that allegations of torture were brought against officers of the Sudan police force since 18 September 2006 and no investigation had been initiated when this Communication was submitted to the Commission in January 2009. The Respondent State's argument that the Complainants failed to follow the proper procedure in initiating their case is unfounded. What is important is whether the Respondent State was aware of these allegations and whether it took steps to investigate the allegation. 46. It is evident from the submissions of both parties that the State had ample notice of the allegations that its agents had committed serious abuses, including torturing the Victims. This notwithstanding, the Respondent State took no measures to investigate these allegations. The State's failure to act on the Complainants' allegations which were duly brought to its attention is a clear indication that it was not willing to respond to the allegations, their seriousness notwithstanding. According to the Commission's jurisprudence in Article 19 v Eritrea, the Respondent State by failing to take measures to investigate these allegations in spite of being notified has forfeited its prerogative to deal with the matter domestically.10 47. The Respondent State also admits that police officers in Sudan generally enjoy immunity which can only be lifted after a preliminary investigation. It does not also dispute the fact that there is no established procedure or right to compel the Prosecution Attorney to commence an investigation where there is an allegation of wrongdoing by the police, nor that as established above; an attempt at investigating the allegations was made. The Commission considers the granting of such blanket immunities to police officers as an impediment to the exhaustion of local remedies since it is not disputed that there is no legal obligation on the part of the police hierarchy to lift the immunities of these officers on demand. Because of the immunity granted to police officers, neither a private prosecution nor a civil suit could be brought against them unless such immunities were lifted, which immunities could only be lifted after a preliminary investigation. 48. By failing to initiate an investigation into the complaints, the Respondent State thereby made any local remedies that theoretically existed, ineffective. The Commission has established in its jurisprudence that a Complainant is not required to exhaust local remedies which as a matter of fact, are ineffective.11 . This case is no exception since the inaction of the Respondent State in failing to investigate serious allegations about torture, precluded the Complainants from availing themselves of the available local remedies, thereby rendering them ineffective. It follows that the Respondent State has forfeited its prerogative to deal with the matter domestically and the Commission consequently considers that the requirement to exhaust local remedies must be dispensed with. 49. The Commission therefore holds that in the present Communication the local remedies in Sudan were not adequate and effective, and hence the Complainants have constructively exhausted local remedies pursuant to Article 56(5) of the African Charter. 5