ACH African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights :~ Human Rights our Collective Responsibility outcome of the case submitted to the S~preme Court, the Respondent State argues that effectiveness of local reJ1edie.i1S does not mean that national proceedings should be in favour of the victim. ( 69. The Commission must first deal with the question whether the Communication is inadmissible on the grounds that it was filed while the Supreme Court of the Respondent Sta~ewas still seized of the matter. The Commission notes that Article 56 of tHe African Charter has to be applied with flexibility." The Commission rec~lls that it is also firmly established in international human rights law and Ipractice that the exhaustion of local remedies rule must be applied with some q.eg.l{El\ijr"pf flexibility and without excessive formalism" .21 ({;'i,}-' "'l~ ;t~" II ~<~:;\;<:-,)\~. ;:'< <,:~;~>?\ ~<;~;:~~?~~, '. :;~~~.: 70. The Commission notes that although th C;:ompl~it1J .;~~$.;:;;£il~5:1 with the Secretariat before the final resolution ' eall0:d,g~d:~ti:h~",~j1preme Court, the Communication was n!;l: ide befoie>;.tl;l,e conclusion of that appeal by the Supreme 4~our .. Commis~~9n{Sview, in appropriate cases, a flexible iP:f¢i~~~tatio application)ai Article 56(5) of the African Charter alloJ;Vsthe 69" , nissio receive a Complaint even when an appeal is sti] ,ending '_'., ,·'h~,. lte nat eve!. However, the .~. ,.,.,". Commi~sion will onl~;,cons~~~5.,s~~~\( I };~~!?unis+.., ion after the .fact of the conclusion of th~§?ppe<;l!hastJ?~en transm~~t2gwtothe Secretanat. In the Commission's yiew, ~hat ~6n.~titues art~'>~ppropriate case will be determined on ;~;,case-by-casebasl~(~! ,g~nerally relates to circumstances where the urg~.~~y of the situatio "\> anrants immediate access to the ,,<' commission in "'~t,~~:VOid iTer danger to life, liberty or property. 71. In the" ;', tCommurliq~~~?~i~;theCor;nission notes that at the time the Complaig 'l~d, the Victim was faced with the imminent risk of imprison~~ ~~l0n:Jbejail term a~ainst which he had appealed 'to the Supreme G' t. It is t:ete failure of the Supreme Court to stay execution of the decision f the Parliament Co~ittee against which the Victim had appealed tha ,greed the Complainant come before the Commission. " !:B;:? toI 72. The Commission recalls that by Articl~s 60 and 61 of the African Charter, the Commission is encouraged to draw inspiration from international human rights law. In this regard, the Commission finds the experience of the ECtHR useful on this point. Faced .rith a similar challenge in Ringeisen v Austria,22 the ECtHR took the view that "while it is fully upheld th~~~ I ~~. 20Commun~ca~on 304/0~ FIDH - O:ganisationnrtionale des droits de I'Homme (1J!J!j'!j.-~W;:&RI4r Rencontreafricaine pour la defence des droiis de I'Hom1le (RADDHO) v Senegal 21SeeLehtinen. v ~inland (2006) ECtHR (APPliCati0r no 43160/98) P 7; Horoai 11r!0ati (20(~' ECtHR (Apphcation No 51585/99)para 40 "~ 22ECtHR (1971), (Application no 2614/65)para 91 \ ~ ~ AIJ-IJA !l! ('o~\,,\ " <'t,,'\ ~::; I ~~!.I \~"".i. ~ Pa ,11~ .~~ :<'-OMME g '"i {V'? "RICP.\~~Q ET ol:.S 'lf~~~,~,~. %\ 'Z?, '" (I vQ.S;/ ":;,<",,f""