where a mental patient is detained indefinitely. 32. The issue before the African Commission is whether or not there are domestic remedies available to the Complainants in this instance. 33. The Respondent State indicates that there are plans to amend the [LDA], which, in other words is an admission on part of the Respondent State that the Act is imperfect and would therefore not produce real substantive justice to the mental patients that would be detained. 34. The Respondent State further submits that even though the Act itself does not provide review or appeal procedures, there are legal procedures or provisions in terms of the Constitution that the Complainants could have used and thus sought remedies in court. However, the Respondent State has informed the African Commission that no legal assistance or aid is availed to vulnerable groups to enable them access the legal procedures in the country. Only persons charged with capital offences get legal assistance in accordance with the Poor Persons Defence (Capital Charge) Act. 35. In the present matter, the African Commission cannot help but look at the nature of people that would be detained as voluntary or involuntary patients under the [LDA] and ask itself whether or not these patients can access the legal procedures available (as stated by the Respondent State) without legal aid. 36. The African Commission believes that in this particular case, the general provisions in law that would permit anybody injured by another person's action are available to the wealthy and those that can afford the services of private counsel. However, it cannot be said that domestic remedies are absent as a general statement; the avenues for redress are there if you can afford it. 37. But the real question before this Commission is whether looking at this particular category of persons the existent remedies are realistic. The category of people being represented in the present communication are likely to be people picked up from the streets or people from poor backgrounds and as such it cannot be said that the remedies available in terms of the [Gambian] Constitution are realistic remedies for them in the absence of legal aid services. 38. If the African Commission were to literally interpret Article 56(5) of the African Charter, it might be more inclined to hold the communication inadmissible. However, the view is that, even as admitted by the Respondent State, the remedies in this particular instance are not realistic for this category of people and therefore not effective and for these reasons the African Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits 39. The present communication was declared admissible at the African Commission's 31st Ordinary Session in May 2002. The Respondent State has since been requested numerous times to forward their submissions on the merits but to no avail. On 29th April 2003, two weeks prior to the 33rd Ordinary Session, the Respondent State finally forwarded their written submissions to the Secretariat of the African Commission. 40. In coming to its decision, the African Commission will refer to the more recent written submissions on the merits as presented by the Respondent State as well the Respondent State's submissions on admissibility in particular where they address issues relating to the merits of this communication. 41. When States ratify or accede to international instruments like the African Charter, they do so voluntarily and very much awake to their responsibilities to implement the provisions of these instruments. It therefore troubles the African Commission to be forced to make several requests to the Respondent State for its submissions, which are pertinent to its consideration of communications. In the present communication, it is very much unfortunate that the African Commission was forced to take this path bearing in mind the fact that its headquarters is within the Respondent State. This situation not only seriously hampers the work of the African Commission but it also defeats the whole purpose of the African Charter, to which the Respondent States professes to be aligned with. The African Commission therefore hopes that in future the Respondent State will be forthcoming to its requests especially those relating to communications. 42. The Complainants submit that by ratifying the African Charter, the Respondent State undertook an obligation to bring its domestic laws and practice in conformity with the African Charter. This presupposes that any domestic law, which violates the African Charter, should as soon as the Respondent State ratifies or accedes to the African Charter be brought into conformity with articles provided for therein. 'As soon as' in this context would mean that States that are parties to the African Charter should take immediate steps, mindful of their obligations, to bring their legislation in line with the African Charter. The legislation in 3