53. Article 56(4) of the African Charter states that 'Communications relating to human and peoples' rights ... shall be considered if they are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media'. Based on the evidence submitted in these Communications, which are mainly Court documents and Judicial records, the Commission finds that the present Communications are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media and thus complies with Article 56(4) of the African Charter. 54. Article 56(5) of the African Charter, stipulates that 'Communications should be 'sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. This condition ensures that States have the first opportunity to remedy any human rights violations and further ensures that the Commission does not serve as a court of first instance or as a means of circumventing local institutions, which are not only duty bound but are also better placed to remedy human rights violations. The Commission recalls in Association Mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v Mauritania 12that local remedies are the ordinary remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and normally accessible to people seeking justice". In Cudjoe v Ghana'), the Commission stated that local remedies applied to "courts of a 1/ judicial nature". 55. As correctly indicated by the Complainant, in [auiara v Gambia, the Commission recognized a certain level of flexibility to the application of the rule, and held that Complainants are expected to exhaust local remedies only in so far as these remedies are available, effective and sufficient. The Commission further expounded on this by stating that "a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint'<s. 56. The Commission notes the two reasons argued by the Complainant as to why he believes domestic remedies are unavailable and ineffective. The first he mentioned is the widespread corruption in the judiciary and its lack of independence. The Complainant submits that the judiciary is being used as a tool by the Respondent State to discriminate against him, and that the decision of the Vetting Board confirms these allegations. The Complainant claims that this has led to "mistrust and lack of professional respect" between the judiciary and himself. The second he mentio "4 ision by the Supreme Court (petition No.13A, 14, 15 (2013» w .. "b~\l1~liey~ confirmed the finality of the Vetting Board's conclusio ,§:0-0 ls (®' , ~ n ~ ,., - ~\ Ul711 . 0 ~I'I r ::, "- I 242/01 - Interights, Institute for Human Rights and De -lopment in Africa and Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v Mauritania (2004) ACHP~ ara 27. 13 Communication 221/98 - Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana (1999) ACHPR, para 14 .~j/' 14 Ibid 2 ~ 12 Communication 12