so that the appeal procedure becomes unavailable), this would not normally be accepted as a justification for non- exhaustion of the remedy. If a complainant wishes to argue that a particular remedy did not have to be exhausted because it is unavailable, ineffective or inadequate, the procedure is as follows: 1. The complainant states that the remedy did not have to be exhausted because it is ineffective (or unavailable or inadequate) - this does not yet have to be proven 2. The State must then show that the remedy is effective 3. If the State is able to establish this, then the complainant must either demonstrate that he or she did exhaust the remedy, or that it could not have been effective in the specific case even if it may be effective in general. How must the remedy have been exhausted? The subject of the complaint argued before the international body must have been referred to in the complaint before the domestic authorities. The reason for this is to make sure that the State has been given an opportunity to provide redress for the specific complaint which is being brought before the international body. An example might be where a complainant has brought a domestic case seeking compensation for an act of torture, during which he or she did not question the nature of the police investigation into the complaint at any stage. If the court refuses to award compensation on the ground that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that an act of torture occurred, and the complainant claims before the Committee Against Torture that there has been a violation of the State’s obligation to ensure that there is a prompt and impartial investigation of allegations of torture, it is quite possible that this complaint will not be accepted because it was never raised before the domestic authorities - although it may be possible to complain about the failure to provide compensation. When might it not be necessary to exhaust domestic remedies? In special circumstances, the international body may find that domestic remedies did not have to be exhausted even where they were available, and potentially effective and adequate. Such special circumstances include:    Where application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged, e.g. where court proceedings or the investigation of allegations are excessively long, not due to any fault of the complainant Where no independent judiciary exists Where there is a general climate of intimidation such that it is not possible to obtain legal representation Each case will be considered on its facts, and grounds which have been rejected in one case have sometimes been accepted in another, so do not hesitate to be creative in your arguments. One word of warning, however: ignorance of the existence of available remedies is unlikely to be accepted as a justification for non-exhaustion. You should make sure that you are fully-informed of the potential domestic remedies available in any case.54 3.3.2 The requirement that a remedy be “available”, “effective” and “adequate” International and regional human rights bodies have provided guidance on when a remedy is considered “available”, “effective” and “adequate”, such that it must be exhausted under the domestic remedies rule. 54 This highlighted section is taken from: The Torture Reporting Handbook, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, Colchester, 2000, pps. 79-82. REDRESS | ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 19