41. The Complainants submitted that the Respondent State's practice in other cases, confirmed by the findings of the Court's judgments in the present case, as well as the Respondent State's most recent comments to the Human Rights Committee underscore that the Complainants do not have any prospect of obtaining a remedy in the Respondent State that would be capable of redressing the violations committed as a result of the application of Articles 126 and 145 of the 1991 Criminal Code, which the courts confirmed to form part of the Respondent State's legal framework, and that the Respondent State seems determined to maintain the status quo. 42. The Complainants submitted that the absen~e 8tw~.ri~€ff~~t1~e and sufficient re.med.yis further underlined by the Respondent State s ure to re ' dy the alleged VIolations despite ample notice and time to do so. , '~i.Jurthe gue that, under these circumstances, victims of human rights violations 1ia~eno tive but to seek justice outside the Respondent State. The Complainants subiriitte at '0 e Respondent State had ignored calls from other gove~~ments, 'a lettef '.~,£,:r0urgen'", I from the Commission, a request from tl").,~ United' ~ations ~d the me~t~for the "rnment to intervene and prevent harm to tMefirst Victim, which led to the'SgrstComplainant giving birth in custody. k, , ' y-t;",- 'j: 43. ",,(0 ,x' .' n., The Complainants furt1l:~~4}trgued tha ats and !la"rassmentforced them to leave the Respondent State. The CblUplainan~~.' ,~i,tted that: the victims could not stay in the + .;\: --. Respondent State to exhaust domestic remedies, as doing so would have exposed them to a risk to their lives.>They furtl\~r;jJ'.,ubmitted ili~.t~hejurisprudence of the Commission ,' .t, 't''\/< 'I" '" provides that "';theexistence of a fe~~~y must be s'4~ficientlycertain, not only in theory but also in practiser failing which it w~!:1li~a,ck the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the: applicant cannot turri~)o,the judiciary of this country because of a gen~rFllisedfear for his life (or even thos'~ 9f his relatives), local remedies would be con~i;', N, ," available tC;>,him."6 ' ,0 , : ;-. ,.t.'. :\_ 44. Providing information to supportthe contention above, the Complainants submitted that the victimsfaced ~ar;assrpent and intimidation from the agents of the Respondent State, referring to;," " :i:£est ~~,~rport and subsequent detention at a National Intelligence and Security ce (NISS) aetention facility. They stated that the first Victim and her family also recel~~d death threats from extremist religious groups, such as one called "Hamza", which R,}lbliclystated that they would kill the first Victim and everyone who helped her. It is all~ged that more threats were received from the initial plaintiff, who claims to be a brother to the first Victim, who allegedly announced that the family would carry out the death sentence if she were acquitted of apostasy and that she deserved to be executed. As a result of those threats, it was submitted that the Complainants had to seek refuge in the Embassy of the United States of America on two occasions. at ~-'~. _/~~~ i~~'o"" (.CRETAR/11-1tO ,o~' S .,.. ~ ~ . .'~'? Communication 288/2004, paras.63, 74; Communication Communication 232/1999, para.19. 6Communication147/95-149/96,para.35. 5 215/98, para.24; Communication 1~/19Sl 01- '.., !~ ~ [3 () ~ ~l ;::~ .§ c;: ,\;;;~ "" , AU-UA u.s, '0,\ .ito ...J~ldCA\~'\ 1" ~'E ---..- ~-:" ... 0' o'i;..'-:> Co ET Of'" / ' ({'v<V)' '(0 "/ f