CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014 pursue their cases in the Courts. The author did not attempt to seek legal aid and failed to secure any. The State party contests the author’s arguments relating to his failure to initiate a civil case owing to the distance of 300 kilometres from Morogoro (where the author resides) to Dar es Salaam (where the High Court is located). It considers that the advocate who assisted the author to pursue this communication before the Committee, which is located in a different continent, could not have failed to assist him in filing a constitutional case in Tanzania. 4.5 The State party therefore considers that the author’s communication should be found inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, for lack of exhaustion of all available domestic remedies relating to the complaints that he has brought before the Committee. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 11 March 2015, the author submitted his comments to the State party’s observations on admissibility, arguing that the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule should never be used as a protective shield by States that have not established a suitable environment for promoting, protecting and preserving the rights of its individuals. In that connection, the author refers to the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Jawara v. the Gambia, in which the Commission stated that “three major criteria could be deduced … in determining this rule, namely: the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient”. 5 The Commission also 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”. 6 The author also refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Sejdovic v. Italy, according to which, applicants are only required to exhaust domestic remedies which are available in theory and in practice at the relevant time and which they can directly institute themselves, which means that the remedies must be accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints, and offering reasonable prospects of success. 7 Where domestic remedies are non-existent, or unduly and unreasonably prolonged, or unlikely to bring effective relief, a resort to international measures is required. The author considers that this is the case for the acts of murder and attacks of persons with albinism, which are systemic and continuous in the State party, amounting to a grave violation of their rights, and which remain unpunished. 5.2 As to the State party’s submission that the investigation into the author’s case began on the same day that he was attacked, namely, 10 April 2010, and that one suspect was arrested on 21 April 2010, the author acknowledges that the prosecutor withdrew the matter after he testified that the wrong person had been arrested. He submits that he knew the perpetrators, who were his neighbours, and had no other option but to clarify that the suspected person had not taken part in the assault. He did not think that his testimony would have resulted in blocking the investigation of his case. The author considers that, as the State party failed to carry out further investigation and to seek additional clarification, it breached its duty under section 90 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and under the Convention in not carrying out an effective investigation and prosecuting the perpetrators. 5.3 The author further refers to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in the case of Greco v. Argentina, in which the Commission stated that, “while it is the responsibility of the petitioner … to ensure that the State is placed on proper notice of an alleged violation of the Convention, so as to have an adequate opportunity to resolve the complaint within its own legal system, it is the State that is obliged to advance the investigation of any crime which may be prosecuted de oficio. In such cases, it can only be demanded that the petitioner exhaust domestic remedies where the State concerned 5 6 7 4 See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Jawara v. the Gambia, communications Nos. 147/95 and 146/96, decision of 11 May 2000, para. 31. Ibid., para. 32. See European Court of Human Rights, Sejdovic v. Italy, application No. 56581/00, judgment of 1 March 2006, paras. 31 and 34.