p.C HP~ ~ fl ' 6~!:tEfi 0 ( <UI.T.m Human R;ghts ou, Human and Peoples' Rights Collective Responsibility 37. The Respondent State submits that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies because the decision of the JSC was never appealed at the High Court but rather sent straight to the Supreme Court of Appeal.3 38. The Respondent State further postulates that the alleged denial of Legal Representation for the 2nd Complainant was not a denial of justice but rather inline with established legal practice in the Republic of South Africa which confers the power of legal representation exclusively to Legal Practitioners within the Legal Practitioners Act (No. 28 of 2014).4 The Respondent State submits that there is no record of the 1st Complainant being a Legal Practitioner in terms of the Act. They further aver that Legal Aid provided by the Respondent State is only in respect of Criminal matters and not civil disputes. 5 39. The Respondent State also made additional submissions on the lack of exhaustion of local remedies, reiterating that the rule requires that the Complainants approach the international forum as a last resort and not a court of first instance. They cited Nyikadzino (Represented by the Zimbabwe NGO Forum) v Zimbabwe6 to argue that the aforementioned principle of complementarity would be contravened if the Commission usurped South Africa's role to adjudicate matters on the merits in terms of South African Law.7 40. The Respondent State further submits that the local remedies in South Africa were available, effective and sufficient and therefore the Complainants had an obligation to exhaust them. 8 They argue that the remedies were available and this is trite as the South African Constitution and democratic system is celebrated the world over. They emphasize that their Bill of rights in Article 31 provides for the right to seek remedy from competent judicial organs, which judicial organs they state provide for a robust system of adjudication and appeal. 9 41. The Respondent State submits that its remedies are effective and sufficient as they are independent and impartial, citing the Commission's decision in Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe. 10 They propound in addition that the remedies 3 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 9-12 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 16 5 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 17 6 Communication 340/07 7 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & M erits, para 22-24 8 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 25 9 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 27-29 10 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 30-33 4 6I Page The African Comm 31 Bij es' Rights North District. ~ - ~ ~st Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 F=m~il · ;:u 1. h~nil llln)~frir..::1-1 minn nrn