v Eritrea'» position by the Commission that it is not enough for a Respondent State to
make" a general refutation of the claims alleged and to insist that domestic remedies do
exist and that the Complainant did not attempt to exhaust them without relating them to
the circumstances of the case, and without showing how they might provide effective
redress in the circumstances of the case" .17
64. The Complainants further added that a state cannot invoke a "remedy the availability of
which is not evident to the detriment of the complainant"18 and that" the existence of a
remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory,:lJut also in practice, failing which,
it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectivefl,ess~:~!:'
".
65.
<~;";'\'1h
of
66. In addition to the abox~" the Compla
Appeal did not add~~'s§, and re
theComplaints, tb~t~!pe R~~>.nden
as not id
ified any effective remedy, and
that the Consti~ti'bh1il' Cou
ot co siWte a ",dequate remedy because the
approach of the 'Court of Appea k' pressly affifine;d that the criminalisation of apostasy
and adultery is compatible with""the international: human rights obligations of the
Respondent State. The approach of the Court of Appeal in similar cases has been the
sal!W,.Lastly, the C;9,~plainants responde'd}~,at the National Human Rights Commission
an 'P
c Grievarlce~ Chamber do J1Qt
, ( con$titute remedies for Article 56 (5), citing Dr
Faro
d Ibrahim; (represented bYl,'jZEDRESS) v Sudanl?
0
,
>-<;A -;
The Commissi,~n~
sAna
~
,A ;:;' ,"
'1,l:?f
AdmissibjIity
~~
. _-,
67,
Article 56 of the Afrkan,Gharter outlines seven (7) conditions that must all be met for a
Communication to be declared admissible. Failure to comply with one or more of those
conditions renders the Communication inadmissible. The Communication was processed
in terms of Rulttn:,P,R
of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and both parties were duly
accorded an oPll~ftunity to present their views on the admissibility of the
Communication.
"",'
68.
From the submissions of the parties, the Commission noted that the issues 0 CQIll~..ti0n
between the parties concerned the requirements of Article 56 (1), (2), (3)-;\() )i:-aIIH.i'1~;)~f
;/''::>'
Article 19 v Eritrea, Communication 275/03, para. 73,
17 ibid
18Sir Dawda K. [auiara v The Gambia, Communications 147/95-149/96, para. 35.
19Communication 396/10, para. 56.
16
,
n
()
'\
,
""1"
~(.
-0
'"
('
:(C~~,
"
,;~
2
.t « ~~~
, &.
110"-
\O.cRETAP.,
~~.,~s
o
'%
<J'
~
'Z I,
'3 t
') ~
" ."'.,/
AU·I.IA
,_
.. "
~~~
\ -, / /, '-'1'.'1,
-'j'r"(ICA\~~
s » ,i
/
/,~,:,
~",'?
,)
-,
C
~
'.--
x? /~~
, o~
""
-, ~~Df~~\'\'\::~l~'
,
f