Revolution. However, it should be noted that the local remedies any Complainant is required to exhaust under Article 56(5) of the Charter are only the ones that were available, effective and sufficient in the State concerned at the time the alleged violation(s) occurred.13 64. In Jawara v. The Gambia, the Commission stated 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.’14 The Victim in this Communication had filed for and attained at least 15 court orders for his release during a period of almost 16 years, all of which were disregarded by the Respondent State, a fact which is not contested by the Respondent State. He was placed under administrative detention under the Emergency Law without any charge or trial, was subjected to torture and kept under poor conditions of detention. Hence, the local remedies available to the Victim were neither effective nor sufficient. 65. Furthermore, even if the Victim failed to re-submit his complaint, the Respondent State, of its own volition should have investigated the Victim’s allegations of illegal detention, torture and ill treatment. In Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan, the Commission stated that ‘obligations of states are of an erga omnes nature and do not depend on their citizens.’15 66. Similarly, in Article 19 v. Eritrea, the Commission noted that: whenever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the State on its own initiative, the State has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases, one cannot demand that the Complainants, or the Victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the State to investigate the facts and bring the accused to court in accordance with both domestic and international fair trial standards.16 67. In addition, one of the alleged violations is the torture of the Victim while in detention. The Complainants aver that the Victim, and his sister, on his behalf had brought several complaints before the public prosecutor regarding the allegations of torture. The Robben Island Guidelines of the Commission require states to ensure that prompt, impartial and effective investigations are conducted whenever allegations of torture and ill-treatment are brought before competent authorities.17 The prohibition of and protection from torture has now evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, and become a fundamental standard in the international arena, whereby states cannot derogate from their responsibility to Communication 355/07 - Hossam Ezzat & Rania Enayet v. Egypt (2007) ACHPR para 70. Jawara v The Gambia (n 3 above), 32. 15 Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (n 7 above), 39. 16 Article 19 v. Eritrea (n 11 above), 72. 17 ACHPR/Res. 61(XXXII)02: Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (The Robben Island Guidelines) (2002) para 18 and 19. See also Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, 23 November 2007, UN doc. CAT/C/GC/2/CRP.1/Rev.4, para. 1 (excerpted in the Annex); International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Furundzija 10 December 1988, case No IT-9517/1-T, paras 153-154 (excerpted in the Annex). 13 14 9