Submissions of the Respondent State 29. The Respondent State states that the Complainants made no mention of any due legal procedure they have pursued to lodge their complaints against NISS members except the fact that their case was brought to the attention of Sudanese authorities by Embassy representatives and Amnesty International and an open letter was addressed to the Director General of NISS, which the Respondent State submits cannot be considered as legal proceedings requested for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter as far as exhaustion of local remedies is concerned. 30. The Respondent State argues that it is untrue that the applicants were not able to lodge complaints personally inside Sudan , and that the allegation that they had to flee the country out of a well-founded fear for their safety is baseless. Acts of the NISS particularly with regards to detainees are closely monitored by the Supreme Court where a competent judge member of the Supreme Court receives complaints from persons detained by the NISS. The Respondent State claims that the Complainants did not provide any document substantiating the allegation that they or their representatives attempted to lodge complaints and they were denied such right. 31. According to the Respondent State there are available and effective legal remedies within the Sudanese legal system which the Complainants or their representatives could have pursued. The Respondent State submits that as per Article 34 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1991 the Complainants or their representatives should have approached the Prosecution attorney to initiate criminal cases against the NISS members. 32. The Respondent State also submits that Article 54 (1) and (2) of the NISS Act 2010 Article 40 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Act provide that: 1. Where a member commits an offence, in contravention of this Act, and the offence committed is, at the same time, an offence in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Act, 1991, the said member shall be tried, under the provisions of this Act , and the Director, for objective reasons, may commit him to be tried before criminal courts. 2. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the provisions of the Criminal Act shall apply to members, in case of commission thereby, of any offence, in contravention thereof, as may not be provided for in this Act. 33. The Respondent State further submits that Article 59 of NISS 2010 Act (Article 46 of 1999 Act) provides that: "There shall be punished, with imprisonment, for a term, not exceeding ten years, or with fine, or with both, every member, who abuses the exercise of the powers conferred upon him, under the provisions of this Act, or exploits his post, in the Organ, with intent to achieve material, or moral benefit, for himself, or others, or causes injury to others." 34. With regard to the immunity of NISS members, the Respondent State submits that Article 35 of the Criminal Procedures Act stipulates that if the person against whom the criminal suit is initiated enjoys immunity, then a petition has to be presented to the office of the Prosecutor General to proceed with Director of the NISS to lift the immunity of the alleged perpetrator after conducting a preliminary investigation into the allegation. 35. The Respondent State also avers that if directly approached, the Director of the NISS can lift immunity of any member of the NISS in case there is a prima facie evidence of a crime committed by the member. The Respondent State notes that the Director of the NISS issued on 12 August 2007 Directives instructing the NISS members to strictly abide by the national laws and the international human rights standards in the 4