i) Disciplinary and Administrative Remedies considered inadequate for certain violations The HRC has explained that “purely disciplinary and administrative remedies cannot be deemed to constitute adequate and effective remedies within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, in the event of particularly serious violations of human rights, notably in the event of an alleged violation of the right to life”.66 The Committee has also held this to be the case where torture is alleged. 67 This position has also been adopted by other human rights bodies, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.68 ii) Domestic exhaustion neither practical nor desirable The ACHPR has ruled on the exception to exhaustion of local remedies in instances where it is “neither practical nor desirable” to require complainants to exhaust these. In Free Legal Assistance Group, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme, Les Témoins de Jehovah v. DRC, the Commission held that it “has never held the requirement of local remedies to apply literally in case where it is impractical or undesirable for the Complainant to seize the domestic courts in the case of each violation”.69 In Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Guinea, the Commission held, “In this present case, Sierra Leonean refugees [were] forced to flee Guinea after suffering harassment, eviction, looting, extortion, arbitrary arrests, unjustified detentions, beatings and rapes. Would it be required to return to the same country in which they suffered persecution? Consequently, the requirement to exhaust local remedies is inapplicable”.70 iii) Mass Violations Exception in the ACHPR The ACHPR has made an important exception to the ‘exhaustion’ rule when it recognised the futility of pursuing domestic remedies in cases of mass violations affecting a large number of victims and survivors. In Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, the Commission held that “[t]he seriousness of the human rights situation in Sudan, and the great numbers of people involved render such remedies unavailable in fact, or, in the words of the Charter, their procedure would probably be unduly prolonged”.71 In Malawi African Association v. Mauritania, the Commission applied its own ‘impractical and undesirable’ rule of exhausting domestic remedies to situations that result in many victims. In the decision, it stated that “it does not believe that the condition that internal remedies must have been exhausted can be applied literally to those cases in which it is ‘neither practicable nor desirable’ for the complainants or the victims to pursue such internal channels of remedy in every case of violation of human rights. Such is the case where there are many victims”.72 66 Decision of 13 November 1995, Communication 563/1993, Case Nydia Erika Bautista (Colombia), UN doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, para. 8(2). See also Decision of 29 July 1997, Communication 612/1995, Case José Vicente and Amado Villafañe Chaparro, Luis Napoleón Torres Crespo, Angel María Torres Arroyo and Antonio Hugues Chaparro Torres (Colombia), UN doc. CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995, para. 8(2). 67 Giri v Nepal, CCPR 1761/2008 (24 March 2011), para. 6.3; Chaulagain v. Nepal, CCPR 2018/2010, Decision on Admissibility (8 March 2012), para. 6.4. 68 Cañas Cana v Colombia, Report No. 75/03, Petition 42/04, (22 October 2003), paras. 27-28. 69 Free Legal Assistance Group, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme, Les Témoins de Jehovah v. DRC ( ACHPR Commu. 25/89-47/90-56/91-100/93) Available at: http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/25.89-47.90-56.91-100.93/. 70 Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Guinea (ACHPR Comm. No. 249/02) available at: http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/249.02/view/. 71 Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, (ACHPR Commu. 48/90- 50/91-52/91- 89/93) para.30 available at http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/48.90-50.91-52.91-89.93/view/. 72 Malawi African Association v. Mauritania, (ACHPR Commu. 54/91, 61.91, 98/93, 164/97-196,97 and 210/98) para.85 available at http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/54.91-61.91-96.93-98.93-164.97_196.97-210.98/view/. REDRESS | ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 21