58. The Complainant's submissions also demonstrate that it is apprehensive about the success of localremedies either because of fear for the safety of lawyers, the lack of independence of the judiciary or themeagre resources available to the judiciary. Apart from casting aspersions on the effectiveness of localremedies, the Complainant has not provided concrete evidence or demonstrated sufficiently that theseapprehensions are founded and may constituted [sic] a barrier to it attempting local remedies. In the view ofthis Commission, the Complainant is simply casting doubts about the effectiveness of the domesticremedies. This Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on every complainant to take all necessarysteps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of, local remedies. It is not enough for the complainantto cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated or past incidences. Inthis regard, the African Commission would like to refer to the decision of the [UN] Human Rights Committeein A v. Australia16 in which the Committee held that "mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies... did not absolve the author from pursuing such remedies".17 The African Commission can therefore not7 declare the communication admissible based on this argument. If a remedy has the slightest likelihood tobe effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful,without trying to avail oneself of them, will simply not sway this Commission