• does the continuous incommunicado detention of the victims render domestic remedies unavailable, ineffective and inefficient? 65. As regards who is required to exhaust local remedies, the African Charter is clear. It indicates in Article 56.1 that the authors of the communication must indicate their identity even if they claim anonymity. This presupposes that domestic remedies are to be exhausted but by the authors. In the consideration of communications, the African Commission has adopted an actio popularis approach where the author of a communication need not know or have any relationship with the victim. This is to enable poor victims of human rights violations on the continent to receive assistance from NGOs and individuals far removed from their locality. All the author needs to do is to comply with the requirements of Article 56. The African Commission has thus allowed many communications from authors acting on behalf of victims of human rights violations. Thus, having decided to act on behalf of the victims, it is incumbent on the author of a communication to take concrete steps to comply with the provisions of Article 56 or to show cause why it is impracticable to do so. 66. As regards the removal of the Chief Justice, the Complainant fails to demonstrate sufficiently how this removal prevented them from approaching the domestic remedies or how it rendered such domestic remedies unavailable, ineffective, “hopeless, impractical and unreasonable?” The independence of the judiciary is a crucial element of the rule of law. Article 1 of the UN Basic 7 Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary states that “the independence of the Judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of judiciary.” Article 11 of the same Principles states that “the term of office of judges, their independence, security ... shall be adequately secured by law.” Article 18 provides that “Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.” Article 30 of the International Bar Association (IBA)’s Minimum Standards of Judicial 8 Independence also guarantees that “A Judge shall not be subject to removal unless, by reason of a criminal act or through gross or repeated neglect or physical or mental incapacity, he has shown himself manifestly unfit to hold the position of judge” and Article 1(b) states that “Personal independence means that the terms and conditions of judicial service are adequately secured so as to ensure that individual judges are not subject to executive control.” Article 52 (1) of the Eritrean Constitution provides an almost similar provision. 67. The issue however is, does the removal of a Chief Justice in a manner inconsistent with international standards render the judiciary in a State unavailable and ineffective? The Complainant was simply casting doubts about the effectiveness of the domestic remedies. The African Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies. It is not enough for the Complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated incidences. In this regard, the African 9 Commission would like to refer to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in A v Australia in which the Committee held that “mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or prospect of 10 financial costs involved did not absolve the author from pursuing such remedies.” The African Commission can therefore not declare the communication admissible based on this argument. 68. As regards the Complainant’s argument that the Government has failed to abide by its own constitutional obligations as provided for in Article 17 of the Constitution. The African Commission is of the view that the whole essence why human rights violations occur is because governments fail to abide by their domestic as well as international obligations. When this happens, individuals whose rights have been, are being or are likely to be violated seize the local courts to invoke their rights in order to compel governments to abide by these obligations. The Eritrean Constitution provides ample safeguards against persons who are arrested and detained without charge or trial. Apart from subArticles 1, 3, and 4 of Article 17, sub-Article 5 of the same article is very instructive. It provides that “every person shall have the right to petition the court for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus. Where the arresting officer fails to bring him before the court of law and provide the reason for their arrest, the court shall accept the petition and order the release of the prisoner”.