30. On the other hand, the Complainants alleged that there is no functioning judiciary in the respondent State as it has been used by the regime as a tool of repression. Apart from casting vilification on the function of judiciary, the Complainants have not buttressed their argument by concrete evidence. In other words, they could not prove sufficiently that this allegation is well-founded. In the view of the Committee, the Complainants are simply casting doubts about the effectiveness/existence of the domestic remedies. In the case A V Australia, the Human Right Committee noted that "mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or the prospect of financial costs involved did not absolve an author from pursuing such remedies."7 31. In 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."8 The Commission further underscored that it is not enough for the Complainant to cast aspersion on the 9 ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated or past incidences. For instance, the indication 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 be read to render and characterize the whole judiciary dysfunctional. In other words, 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. In any case the functionality of judiciary of a given state cannot be judged by an isolated incidence or the error or violation committed by one court. 32. In their submission, the Complainants mentioned that on 2nd September 2015 Alexandria Criminal Court sentenced the victim to 5 years imprisonment and 5 years under surveillance. Following this sentence, the Complainants have not attempted to use the appellate channel to change the sentence. As the African Commission noted, "If a remedy has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it." The Complainants are arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without exerting an effort to test them. Looking at the situation in perspective, it is difficult to conclude, before trying the appellate channel, and/or on the basis of a seemingly one case, that the respondent State's judiciary is not functioning in the case at hand. 33. In general, the Complainants have not presented conclusive evidence that demonstrates the judiciary of the respondent State is not functioning, and that local remedies are not available, effective, and sufficient. Hence the Committee is not convinced that this communication should benefit from exceptions of rule of exhaustion of local remedies. 7 8 9 See the UN Human Right Committee A v. Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, para 6.4. See Anuak Justice V Ethiopia (n 2 above) para 58. See Anuak Justice V Ethiopia (n 7 above). 8