showing how they might provide effective redress in the circumstances of the case.’ 55. The Complainants aver that the Respondent State failed to address, in its submissions, the particular deficiency of the narrow definition of torture in Egyptian law which would preclude any claim for torture by the Victim, and which makes it impossible to exhaust domestic remedies. The Complainants submit that the Commission, in SERAC v Nigeria, notes that where a right is not well provided for, there cannot be effective remedies, or any remedy at all.12 56. The Complainants assert that compensation alone is not an adequate remedy for the allegations of torture, and so an application for compensation is not necessary to exhaust domestic remedies, either during detention or after it. They aver that torture as an international crime requires investigation and criminal punishment. 57. The Complainants argue that there is no obligation to further exhaust domestic remedies at this stage, because it would unduly prolong the procedure. They state that given the length of time the Victim had already spent seeking justice any requirement to exhaust additional remedies would lead to those remedies being unduly prolonged. Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility 58. Article 56 of the African Charter governs the Admissibility of individual Communications. 59. The Complainants in this Communication state that all the requirements of Admissibility under Article 56 have been met. The Respondent State argues that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies as required by Sub-Article 56(5) of the African Charter, but does not refute any of the factual allegations by the Complainants. 60. After considering the submissions of the Complainants, the Commission is satisfied that the conditions in the undisputed sub-articles have been met and thus only analyses the contended sub-article based on the submissions of both Parties. 61. The Respondent State avers that the Victim failed to re-submit his Complaint and proceeds to list domestic laws and rulings which could have been used to exhaust local remedies without relating them to the facts of the case. The Complainants argue that there is no onus on the Victim to re-submit his complaint and that the Respondent State should have initiated an investigation since it had ample notice of the violations. 62. Article 56(5) of the African Charter embodies the principle of exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless the procedure would be unduly prolonged. 63. The Respondent State contends that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies because the Victim has not re-submitted his complaint after being told that copies of his previous complaints went missing during the January 2011 12 SERAC v Nigeria (n 4 above), 37. 8