ACH African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Human Rights our Collective Responsibility .,.''''." Commission. The Complainant contends further that the issues are also within the scope of the AU Constitutive A~t. 53. The Complainant argues that the JqUirement to show a prima facie violation of the Charter only requires the latter to show that a human rights violation may have occurred. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that it has set out a prima fa~ie case that is compatible with the AU Constitutive Act and the African Charter. 54. In response to th'-·Respondent state,j argument that local remedies had not been exhausted as required by Article 5~(5~';;9f the Charter, the Complainant asserts that it has "gone to Iengtl¢";'t~"et:eW;$mstratehow the local remedies in this case have prored tde; .' 's:eff ',,; e, illusory and unavailable". Citing the case of Akdiv~r v urkey<.~~~}" ~?t~~\~ ~~~pean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the ""';i(~ntc0~!ep s'tha,t<~\ie:medy should be "an effective one, avai!iit tK~~~:yandz;i].}practice at the relevant time". The Complail1.~flt co ..",::~g.s/~}f:hher thllt.,:;·!J:iejudgment handed down by the Supt,e:qle4qg~l;1rtof "':' i" .abwe in C,cise no SC75j05 filed by the Victim" actually reinfo~P the... mission that there are no domestic remedies, ava~l~~!f. to hi~' .••.. ~ .;t~uS,th plainant asserts that the burden of pr6viJ:lf tH~;<i@?fiste~9~" o'£tli.y;ailabl nd sufficient domestic remedies lies upons.tll~([~.tate;7:~;~~·'r ..';l:· " '\f·.:", /I The Commission' .fnalYSi: on Ad~i, ~ 55. The Communica ..v"'P is brought 'tInder Article 55 of the African Charter. ACC?r,?-i ..·:r.'0.g.,.l. y' it ne~f*; 9 s~tisfy~t;e se.¢en Admissibil~ty .requiremen~s laid out In '~f:t:lc!~:56of th .. :ilii'narterlAs the Commission has previously held, tH~.:c·o~4itiptls in Ai ICe 56 of the Charter apply conjunctively and cumulativ:~ly.~TM§1nea:llB that a failur~ to satisfy anyone or more of those conditions renders the;€ommunicatiorl inadmissible." 56. The COmmiiiio!'!flotes that in the preJ.nt Communication, the parties are in agreement that the conditions laid but in Article 56 (I), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the African Charter have bJen met. The Commission's own assessment of the Communication alko confirms that the conditions in those provisions have been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commission's analysis will focus on the requirements in Article 56 (2) and (5) of the Charter. I I z~~~" SAkdivar v Turkey(1996) ECtHR (Application No 21893/93) "'o~~c~€.IAR/4r 6 See Communication 304/2005 - FIOH NationdZ Human Rights Organizatiol/jfjt..ffj an RencontreAfricaine pour la Defense des Droits de l'Homme (RADDHO) v Seneg~~06) ~cr}it~\ para 38 l :'1~ ;~!!) 7Article 19 v Eritrea (2007),para 43 \\~~ '6 .o~o:,~, <'<:<'\ I ... ~ p..1J . e'tQ;o " 'V 4"RICP.\~ -, If>~ , 0 ~ i ~"''':~t- B ~ f ~ \"".6..~ '0, Ul (~ -r , , Q' ~0'!«_; P 1<;<:;) ~_-0'<"// '?"~ 0il1ME ET o€.'O,_:;."