orders in the country. The Complainant states that in a number of decisions rendered by the judiciary, particularly those concerning the treatment of members of the opposition party, and matters affecting the executive, there has been a deliberate practice of non-enforcement. 72. In response, the Respondent State argues that contrary to the Complainant‟s submissions, it has discharged its onus to prove that remedies are not only available, but also effective. It adds that there is no indication that the conduct of State Officials impeded the Complainant from exhausting local remedies, and that the Complainant did not attempt to exhaust them. 73. An effective remedy according to the African Commission in Sir DawdaK. Jawara v The Gambia must offer a prospect of success.16 The African Commission has also held on several occasions that attempts must be made to exhaust local remedies before concluding that they are not available, sufficient and effective. 74. In Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia17 for instance, when the Complainant showed apprehension in exhausting local remedies, the African Commission held that, “If a remedy has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without trying to avail oneself of them, will not simply sway the Commission”. Similarly, in Article 19 v Eritrea,18 the Commission ruled that “It is incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, 16 Communication 147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia(2000), para 32. 17 Communication 299/05 – Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) para. 58. 18 Communication 275/2003, Article 19 v The State of Eritrea (2007), para 65. 20