000$19 of being outside the country, due to the fear for his life." 18 lt therefore held that even though in theory the domestic remedies were available, they were not effective, and could not be pursued without much impediment. 72.This Court has, in lhe Lohe lssa Konatd v Burkina case, also held that "a remedy can be considered to be available or accessible when it may be used by the Applicant without impediment".le 73.|n the instant case, the Court notes that, the Second and Fifth Applicants faced charges of serious crimes and fled from the Respondent State's territory. They have indicated that they fear for their security. Furthermore, all the Applicants are outside the Respondent State's territory and their travel documents having been invalidated lt is reasonable, in view of the manner in which the Applicants learnt of the invalidation of their passports, for them to have been without formal notification. apprehensive about their security and fear for their lives. The serious nature of the crimes relating to the two Applicants may also have resulted in difficulties in all the Applicants designating Counsel to file a claim on their behalf before the domestic courts regarding the invalidation of their passports. ln the circumstances of the Applicants' case the Court therefore finds that the local remedies were not available for the Applicants to utilise. 74.The objection to the admissibility of the Application based on non-exhaustion of local remedies is therefore dismissed. B. Gonditions of admissibility that are not in contention between the Parties 75.The Court notes that there is no contention regarding compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 40, sub-rules, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules on the nature of the evidence adduced, the filing of the Application within a reasonable time after exhaustion of lsCommunication 288/04 Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe (ACHPR 2012) 574 1s Loh6 /ssa Konate v. Burkina Faso, (merits) (2014) 1 AfCLR 314 S 96. 18 i @