Human Rights our Collective Responsibility forces for any acts committed in the course of their duties.'? The immunities shield these officials from criminal prosecution and any civil suits unless the head of the respective forces, or in the case of the Armed Forces, the President of the Republic, approves such legal action. Moreover, they claim that there is no judicial or administrative procedure in place that would enable the Victims to compel the relevant authorities or the President of the Republic, in relation to violations committed by members of the SAF, to waive immunity and undertake a full criminal investigation. The waiver of immunity is therefore entirely discretionary. 61. The Commission has previously held that in light of the immunity provisions under Sudanese law, "it would be a mockery of justice to expect that the Victims would get justice from such a discretionary remedy."18 The Commission has made its position clear that when a remedy is a discretionary, extraordinary remedy of a non-judicial nature, then the Complainants are not required to pursue it as part of the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. In Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lakuiot and Six Others) v Nigeria'? and Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Wahab Akamu, G. Adega and Others) v Nigeria,20 the Commission ruled that when the remedy is of a discretionary, extraordinary remedy of a non-judicial nature "it would be improper to insist on the Complainant seeking remedies from a source which does not operate impartially and have no obligation to decide according to legal principles. The remedy is neither adequate nor effective'i." . I .-. 62. In line with the above reasoning, the Commission finds that the immunity provisions in Sudanese law render local remedies inadequate and ineffective. 63. Furthermore, it is the Commission's established jurisprudence that, the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not required in cases where it can be shown that a State failed to remedy a situation despite ample notice and time' to do SO.22 In the present Communication, it is clear from the request for Provisional Measures issued by the Commission, the reports of the AU, UN and international NGOs that the Respondent State had ample notice of the alleged human rights violations in South Kordofan and Blue Nile State, and should have accordingly taken the I 17 Namely Article 52 of the National Security Forces Act 2010, Article 46 of the Police Act 1999 and Article 34 of the Armed Forces Act 2007 18 Communication 379/09 - Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan, para.67. 19 Communication 87/93 - Constitutional Rights Project (in respect of Zamani Lakwot and six others) v Nigeria, para 8. 20 Communication 60/91 - Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria, para 10. 21 As above. 22 Communication 275/03 - Article 19 v Eritrea, paras 72, 77. 14