r. .' ",..- •.: ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 49. With regards to Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Respondent State contends that local remedies have not] been exhausted because an appeal against the incarceration of the Victi1 w~s brought before the Supreme Court of the Respondent State bU~I.the Complainant rushed to the Commission and filed this Communication before the appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court. The Responde4t State argues that the action of the Complainant has deprived it of thel opportunity to first address the dispute. The Respondent argues that the action of the Complainant amounts to forum shopping which thJ Commission has condemned in its decision in Interights v Namibia+ /;\;~! "b" 50. The Respondent State contends furtherr that ~~~:exce .*~~rs to the rul~ of exhaustion of local remedies do not apply in;faVAVIof tl\~iCommunication I '" ',' '"' " ,~. because the requirement that local remedies shdu19",be;1~ffeGtivedoes not necessarily mea~ t.hat the outcome ~f!;ttatio~'a~'rrrib~~4.!~g§~:;~KB~Lcf;be in favour of the Victim. The State argues. furtherjthat lo~~1;l.en::edles were effective c.ontrary to the ~ompl "~a~trs 51~i~;9-hd th~t tR,~,:;1@t'ate. did not comply WIth only the national, .," IOfs tlii.~~itIt had appealed against. The Respondent contends that..it ha """ p,ealed':,aga,inst "most of the cases" <, ""···'o',k, '. ." mentioned by the Comp, .,,:'.lnt. AcC6~§Jp"gly,thEt~7§pondent State argues that the exceptions tOJlle ',:~¥:s!o nqj!;~pp~Yt~pthis,'case . .-, '" .,. '~~:':>:~I'" I ""~:i'~';iff'x 51. The Respondent 'State argues"~J{TI:rtherth~t>'the Complainant was not interested in exhausting local remed.1 I, since it did approach the Supreme Court over the \aileged refusal tq ob " :,[.thecourt orders in its favour and the Victim did not.await the final\kiecis,'on of the Supreme Court. Thus, the Respq\~~,~~t State" <c?~~~~ds theW;'the I~OmmiSSion would be "se~ting ,a dangeI:~~,~:~R~~'.:edent'if:J~;~rI~:.toadrrpt a c~se based on a Complainant,s apprehel):sfon,:~po;t1t the perceived lack of Independence of a country s domesti~\:insg~Ha~f;,:.,I!'l support of this position, the Respondent State refers to tli~>'aecisioi}'i;fn Kenyan Section of the Ie] v Kenya.4 Hence, the Respondent-State asserts that the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies. \.:1t::'l:? I ,;~>