rights issues raised in the Communication could have been resolved had they approached the Constitutional Court, the National Human Rights Commission, or the Public Grievances Chamber. In Communication 275/03, the Commission held 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.t'=As advanced by the Respondent State in the present matter, the Commission noted that the Complainants could have approached the Constitutional Court to exhaust local remedies, but they have not done so. The Commission does not rely on mere aspersions of what could have been the outcome had the Complainants approached the Constitutional Court to determine the effectiveness of local remedi§1~;to decide, Qt)., the admissibility of this Communication. Casting doubts on the efficacy ofIt, qomesticfl.1emedies does not absolve Ar?'" the author from pursuing such remedies ' »», 86. However, the jurisprudence of the es th~t it is not enoqgh for a State to make a general refutation that avciitclble and eff~btive and that ~"~fn:" the Complainants did not attempt to the pres~htcase, the Respondent State has listed the existence of , without relating them to the circumstances of the case and without they might provide adequate redress.> In Communi~Eition 275/ 03>'tb~ , held that lithe fact that the Complainant has npt su'ffiCiently derilgnsp-ated have exhausted domestic remedies does npt 'mean such remedies are available, effective, and sufficient. The Commission c 'infer from the, circumstances surrounding the case and determine whether such edies are available, and if they are, whether they are effective and sufficient." 36 87. From the submissions" of both the Cqmplainants and the Respondent State, it is not disputed tll,~t the life 'b~:!~e first Vi \ , her husband (the second Victim), and their children (the third and fou.!;t,· vere in danger. It is not in dispute that they have received threats from religiou ill the Respondent State, and the family members of the first Victim also .threatened to kill her. The Respondent State submitted that the first Victim'~8,~~~~pt in aef~:I}t,ionduring her trial for her safety, where she delivered the fourth Victim;~~E~use memBe~s of her family were furious about what they considered her disgraceful Behaviour, which they looked at as an insurgency against their values and beliefs, even threatening to kill her if she had been released.'? 88. It is not in dispute that after the Court of Appeal revoked the conviction and sentence of the first victim, which resulted in her release, she had to seek refuge in the Embassy of the United States of America. She also had to seek refuge in the same Em6a~~~6n\~ ,.) ,,=,'vc,'r< 33 "lr ~o\, .,l'> (.!C 7'/ Article 19 v En:trea, Commu~ca~on 275/03, para, 67. 'g'1;~\ Article 19 v Eritrea, Commurucation 275/03, para, 67, :i \..,' 1 i: §' JI 35 Article 19 v Eritrea, Communication 275/03, para, 73, \~ ~ f,U-UA Q-f)r;: 36 ibid para, 74, .t._ ';;'0'" ~,,?Q '" 37 Paragraph 5 of the Respondent States' Observations on the Complainants' Submission on AdmissjiSilit}:.·foic r>,11:\.-\) ,,,;;-' • 34 i t/ " '", ' J' ,<;" ......... O~lIV1E E1 aI's \ _ ,.:,,? ~--.::::;;r .... "'~~r __ 18