has taken little or no steps to remedy those violations. According to the complainants, these impediments render local remedies unavailable to the victims. 25. The Complainants further submitted that the Egyptian judiciary has in general been used by the regime as a tool of repression against many citizens including the vulnerable. Noting that recently a Court has sentenced a four years old child to life imprisonment for allegedly committing a crime 2 years ago and there are other reported incidents, the Complainant argued that there is no functioning judicial system in the respondent State. From the submission of the complainants, it can be discerned that they did not approach any court to expose the fact that the victim faced torture and to rectify the wrong done to the victim. 26. From Section IX Article 1(d) of the Revised Communication Guideline, it can be understood that there are exceptional circumstances in which the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies can be left aside. In applying the rule of exhaustion of local remedies, this Committee takes into account the circumstances of each case, including the general context in which the formal remedies operate and the personal circumstances of the complainant. 27. In the present case, there is no indication that the Complainants approached the judicial system with a view to attempt to exhaust local remedies. The complainants are arguing that there are no local remedies to be exhausted. 28. As the ACERWC indicated in its previous decisions, the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is only with regard to remedies that are 'available, effective and sufficient'.6 The main question that begs a detailed look in the present communication is whether it can be concluded that local remedies in the Respondent State are not available, ineffective or insufficient based on the allegations made by the complainant. 29. Although the Complainants argued that the State is well aware of the series of serious and massive human rights violations occurring in the respondent State, they did not adduce any evidence to prove this allegation. For any allegation to be considered by the Committee, it should be backed by the evidence that can prove it. A mere allegation cannot hold responsible the respondent State. From the submission of the Complainants, it cannot be concluded that the state is well aware about the wrongs done to the victim. In this regard, the Committee is not convinced by the submission of the complainants. 6 See IHRDA and other on behalf of Children of Nubian descent v. Kenya (n 3 above) para 28. 7