The rule of "exhaustion of local remedies" is a key principle of procedural law in the international human rights system, requiring complainants to pursue all domestic legal procedures before resorting to international bodies. However, the mere existence of domestic remedies does not guarantee genuine access to justice, necessitating criteria to evaluate their practical usability.

This article, using a descriptive-analytical method and systematic study of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights case law, examines how the exhaustion rule is interpreted within the African regional human rights system. Although the three criteria of availability, effectiveness, and sufficiency have been previously raised in the Commission's practice, the main innovation lies in presenting a systematic and categorized analysis of these criteria for the first time in Persian legal literature, while elucidating their role in balancing national sovereignty and human rights.

The findings indicate that the African Commission has transformed the rule from a mere procedural requirement into a functional tool by adopting a dynamic, pragmatic, and victim-centered approach. The application of exceptions—such as lack of judicial independence, unreasonable delays, widespread insecurity, economic inability of complainants, structural inefficiency of the judicial system, and impossibility of effective redress—reflects this conceptual shift. This transformation ultimately underscores the necessity for the Commission to draft a General Comment to consolidate this progressive jurisprudence.