Applicants. 54. The African Commission also note that on 8 July 2003, Justice Daniel Aganyanya of the Nairobi High Court refused to transmit the file to the Chief Justice on the ground that there was need to ascertain the identity of the 100,000 applicants on whose behalf the application was filed. Even where a date had been fixed for the hearing of the case on the Merits for 7 June 2004, Justice Mugo declined to hear the case and referred it back to the duty judge for directions on the grounds that there were contradictory orders in the file. Furthermore, letters to the Chief Justice complaining about the difficulties in access the courts have gone unanswered. 55. In the present Communication, the African Commission agrees with the Complainants that local remedies are unavailable. A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment. After more than four years, there does not seem to be any realistic prospect of the Complainants' case being heard. In the Jawara case, the African Commission held that a remedy is considered available only if the Complainant can make use of it in the circumstances of his case.20 It is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 56. The Jawara case stated the following: ...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.[/quote} It states further that [quote]...The Commission has stressed that remedies the availability of which is not evident, cannot be invoked by the State to the detriment of the complainant ... The existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the Complainant cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because of insurmountable legal and administrative bottlenecks, local remedies would be considered to be unavailable.21 In the present case, the African Commission finds that even though in theory the domestic remedies were available, they were not effective, and could not be pursued without much impediment. 57. The Respondent State argues that the case is still pending in the High Court of Kenya, and that it was stood over because the Court requested for some information to confirm that indeed some of the people who were represented in the suit were really the aggrieved persons. The Respondent State says that the Complainants were asked to identify the Applicants by having signed affidavits, but they were unable to do so or for their own well-known reasons did not do so. The Respondent State has failed to inform the Commission what these "well-known reasons are." 58. The Complainants claim that the Government of the Republic of Kenya has been aware of the situation of the Petitioners for years and has not acted to protect them. 59. The African Commission has held that where the existence of serious and massive violations of human rights has been shown, the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is founded on the principle that a Government should have notice of such human rights violations in order to have the opportunity to remedy such violations.22 The African Commission has also stated that when a series of serious violations of Human rights are indicated it is only right that the government be given ample notice of the violations.23 60. Without going into the Merits of the case, the Communication alleges violations of Articles 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Charter. These Articles guarantee economic rights as well group rights which are not protected under the Kenyan Constitution. The African Commission notes that the Government has been sufficiently aware of the plight of the Nubians to the extent that it can be presumed to know the situation prevailing within its own territory as well as the content of its international obligations. 61. The Respondent State has suggested that Complainants could have also lodged an official complaint with the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights to look into the matter, as an independent human rights body that acts as a watchdog on human rights issues. Two issues emanate from such a statement: is there a suggestion that the Courts have not been independent in this case, and also is there any realistic prospect of getting justice from the National Commission for Human Rights? 7