The Commission confirmed this decision in Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, where it held that “considering that the alleged violations prima facie constitute ‘serious and massive violations’, [it] finds that under the prevailing situation in the Darfur, it would be impractical to expect the complainants to avail themselves of domestic remedies, which, are in any event, ineffective. Had the domestic remedies been available and effective, the Respondent State would have prosecuted and punished the perpetrators of the alleged violations, which it has not done”.73 3.3.3 Meeting the exhaustion requirement: key aspects  The need to make “normal use” of the remedy If a domestic remedy is covered by the exhaustion rule (i.e., it meets the requirement of effectiveness and other conditions), a victim is obliged to make “normal use” of that remedy. “Normal use” implies that she complies with procedural requirements in domestic law, such as time limits, and formal requirements, such as subject matter jurisdiction and standing to bring the action. The failure of counsel to observe procedural requirements will not absolve the victim of the responsibility to meet the requirements of domestic law, unless that failure is in some way attributable to conduct by the State. If procedural requirements are so onerous or impractical as to make the remedy ineffective or inaccessible in the circumstances of the case, or authorities impede recourse to the procedure, resort to those remedies would not be considered “normal use.” ...  The need for a final decision In order to meet the exhaustion requirement, a victim must have obtained a final decision from the highest court to which recourse is available. If there are ongoing proceedings at the time the Committee considers a communication, the claim will not have been properly exhausted. In such circumstances, the complainant must either demonstrate that an exception to the requirement applies or re-submit the communication after obtaining a final judgment. A final decision implies that appeals have been taken to the highest possible level. If there are multiple claims, all must have been pursued through to a final decision at the highest appellate level. Claims that have been discontinued by the victim will be considered unexhausted. Like initial proceedings, appellate remedies must be available, adequate and effective in the particular circumstances of the case in order to be subject to the exhaustion rule. …  The need to raise the substance of the claim at the domestic level In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the claim presented in a communication must have been raised in substance at the domestic level. This requirement is wellestablished in human rights jurisprudence. 74 The ECtHR has clarified that the European Convention right, need not be explicitly raised in the domestic proceedings, as long as the issue was raised in substance. 75 On this particular issue, the CEDAW Committee has unfortunately rendered a communication inadmissible where sex discrimination has not been raised explicitly in a domestic proceeding even where it was implicitly raised.76 73 Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, (ACHPR Commu. 279/03-296/05) para.102 available at http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/279.03-296.05/view/. 74 Sullivan, Donna J, ‘Overview of the Rule Requiring Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Under the Optional Protocol to CEDAW’, OP-CEDAW Technical Papers No. 1, International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, pp. 8-10, available at: http://www.iwrawap.org/publications/doc/DonnaExhaustionWeb_corrected_version_march%2031.pdf. 75 Castells v. Spain, ECtHR no. 11798/85, Judgment of 23 April 1992, § 32; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, ECtHR no. 18877/91, Judgment of 15 November 1996, § 33; Fressoz and Roire v. France, ECtHR no. 29183/95, Judgment of 21 January 1999, § 38; Azinas v. Cyprus, ECtHR no. 56679/00, Grand Chamber Judgment of 28 April 2004, §§ 40-41; Cardot v. France, ECtHR no. 11069/84, Judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34. 76 Kayhan v. Turkey, CEDAW 8/2005 (27 January 2006); N.S.F. v. United Kingdom, CEDAW 10/2005 (30 May 2007). 22 ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES | REDRESS