CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014 has therefore been unduly delayed and prolonged 13 so that the local remedy before the High Court is not available. 5.8 The author reiterates that, since 2000, there has been an increase in the number and scale of attacks on persons with albinism in the State party, many of which remain unreported. He submits that the State party has been unable to prosecute the reported cases so far,14 and that the judicial system in the State party is ill-equipped to handle the high number of cases related to persons with albinism. 15 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, according to which, when, in the premise of “massive” and “serious” violations of human rights, a State is aware of such violations, it is expected to take appropriate action to prevent them. 16 The author submits that, in his case, the State was notified of the grave violations of human rights that he has suffered, but the State party’s authorities have not taken the necessary steps to investigate the case, prosecute and punish the perpetrators, and prevent similar acts of violence against persons with albinism in the United Republic of Tanzania. 5.9 The author submits that a remedy is considered available only if it is accessible in theory and in practice 17 and can be “pursued without any impediment”. 18 Domestic remedies are also said to be effective when they offer some prospects of success, such as redress for the violations complained of. In cases of serious violations, such as alleged violations of the right to life or the prohibition of torture, purely administrative or disciplinary proceedings cannot be claimed to be sufficient or effective. 19 Remedies must then be of a judicial nature, and States should be able to establish the criminal responsibilities of the culprits. The author refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which, applicants need not exhaust domestic remedies “where an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts … and official tolerance by State authorities has been shown to exist, and is of such a nature as to make proceedings futile or ineffective”.20 5.10 The author therefore considers that, in the particular circumstances of his case, the local remedies in the State party are unavailable, and even if available, they are ineffective and insufficient.21 He therefore requests the Committee to examine the case on the merits, reiterating that the acts of which he has been victim, the fact that they have not been investigated and the non-prosecution of those responsible amount to a violation of his rights under articles 5, 15 and 17 of the Convention. Lack of reply from the State party on the merits of the communication 6. On 12 May 2015, 27 November 2015, 4 March 2016, and 9 May 2016, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes and regrets that no information has been received from the State party in that regard. In the absence of a reply from the State party, the Committee must give due weight to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they have been substantiated. 22 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 6 See Association of Victims of Post-electoral Violence and INTERIGHTS v. Cameroon, para. 63. See A/HRC/28/75. The author refers to cases that had been reported in 2015 only, at the time of his submission to the Committee. He refers to the example of a 1-year-old albino boy, who was abducted from his home in the north-western part of the country in January 2015 and was found murdered with his arms and legs hacked off. The victim, Yohana Bahati, was kidnapped from his family home in the Geita Region by an armed gang. His mother, Esther, was struck with a machete as she tried to protect him. See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, World Organisation against Torture et al. v. Zaire (Zaire mass violation case), communications Nos. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91 and 100/93, decision of March 1996, para 55. See European Court of Human Rights, Akdivar and others v. Turkey, application No. 21893/93, decision of 16 September 1996, para. 66. See Jawara v. the Gambia, para. 32. See Vicente et al. v. Colombia, para. 5.2. See Akdivar and others v. Turkey, para. 67. See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, D.H. and others v. the Czech Republic, application No. 57325/00, judgment of 7 February 2006. See, inter alia, Human Rights Committee, communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab