The Human Rights Committee (HRC) allows cases where the domestic remedies available offer no reasonable prospect of redress.55 In an important decision concerning rights of women, the HRC declared that where there is “no administrative remedy which would enable a pregnancy to be terminated on therapeutic grounds, nor any judicial remedy functioning with the speed and efficiency required to enable a woman to require the authorities to guarantee her right to a lawful abortion within the limited period”, the exhaustion requirement is met, because there is no need to exhaust a remedy which had no chance of being successful.56 The IACtHR has explained that adequate domestic remedies are those within the domestic legal system that are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. An effective remedy is one that is capable of producing the result for which it was designed. 57 It will admit cases if the domestic remedies are considered inadequate or ineffective, such as by reason of indigence and lack of legal aid. 58 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has also recognised that the rule should be applied with flexibility and without formalism, 59 that applicants need only to exhaust remedies that are available and effective and not exhaust extraordinary measures, 60 and that in determining whether a remedy is available and effective, the circumstances of the individual case and the overall political and legal context must be taken into account.61 The ECtHR however, in Cyprus v. Turkey ruled that “lack of financial means does not absolve the applicant from making at least some attempt to take legal proceedings”.62 Article 4(1) of the Optional Protocol (OP)-CEDAW waives the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies where such remedies are unlikely to bring effective relief. 63 The CEDAW Committee has ruled that a constitutional challenge “could not be regarded as a remedy… which was likely to bring effective relief to a woman whose life was under a criminal dangerous threat”.64 The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has explained availability, effectiveness and sufficiency in the simplest yet clear manner. In Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, the Commission stated that “[a] remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint”.65 55 Colamarco v. Panama, HRC 437/1990 (21 October 1994), para 5.2. 56 K.L. v. Peru, HRC 1153/2003 (24 October 2005), para 5.2. 57 I/A Court H. R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, paras. 63-64; I/A Court H. R., Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C No. 5, paras. 66-67; I/A Court H. R., Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, paras. 87-88. 58 Exceptions to Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Advisory Opinion), IACtHR, Ser.A.No.11 (10 August 1990). 59 Ringeisen v. Austria, ECtHR Judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, § 89; Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECtHR 1999-VII. 60 Cinar v. Turkey, ECtHR no. 28602/95, decision of 13 November 2003; Prystavka v. Ukraine, ECtHR no. 21287/02, decision of 17 December 2002. 61 Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, ECtHR Judgment of 6 November 1980, §§ 36-40; Akdivar v. Turkey, ECtHR Judgment of 16 September 1996, §§ 68-69; Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, ECtHR Judgment of 24 February 2005, §§ 116117; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, ECtHR Judgment of 24 February 2005, §§ 152-153. 62 Cyprus v. Turkey ECtHR no. 8007/77, (dec.), DR 13, 85, § 352. 63 Article 4(1), Optional Protocol, Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 64 Goecke v. Austria, CEDAW 5/2005 (6 August 2007), para 7.5. 65 Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, (ACHPR Commu. Nos. 147/95 and 149/96) para.32 available at: http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/147.95-149.96/view/. 20 ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES | REDRESS