EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 157 70. Based on the above, the Supreme Court adjudged that the appeal before the court a quo to have the decision of the Buhera Rural District Council set aside on review on the basis of non-compliance with the provisions of the Regional, Town and County Planning Act was misconceived.55 The judgment of the Supreme Court also indicates that even the counsel of the appellants conceded that the appeal has no merit, which is also obvious from the reading of the judgment. 71. The Commission agrees with the Respondent State on the point that the domestic courts were not given the opportunity to remedy the merits or substance of the complaint. As indicated above the purpose of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is to enable states address alleged violations of human rights before international bodies. In assessing whether states have been given this opportunity it is of prime importance to make sure that they have been addressed on all the substantive issues complained of and that the domestic procedures as provided by the laws of the country have been properly pursued, unless they are apparently unjust or prolonged. 72. In this Communication the issue for determination before the Commission is the alleged unlawful eviction of the Muzerngwa’s and the human rights violations they suffered as the result of such evictions. However, as the reading of the facts of the case clearly indicate the local courts of the Respondent State were never approached to rule on the issue of eviction and other human rights violations that are allegedly caused by the evictions. The African Commission is convinced by the Respondent State’s argument, which is not contested by the Complainant, that the latter could have approached the Supreme Court on the basis of Section 24(2) of the Constitution to get redress for the alleged human rights violations. 73. It is true that the High Court and Supreme Court have been approached and both of them ruled against the petitioners. It should however, be noted that the Courts did not rule on the merits of the case but on both instances dismissed the case on technicalities. The reason the courts were not able to deal with the merits is because the courts were approached to rule on procedural matters and thus failed to raise the substantive issues before the domestic courts. 74. The African Commission is in agreement with the Complainant that appealing to the President is not a judicial remedy as it is discretionary in nature and therefore they are not expected to pursue it. Notwithstanding this fact the Commission is of the opinion that the issue before it, that is, the eviction of residents of the Wakarambwa village, has not been decided upon by the domestic courts of the Respondent State. What the High Court and Supreme Court were called upon to do was to review the decision of the Buhera District Council and not to rule on the substance of the case. 55 Nditira Muzerengwa Chuma v Buhera Rural District Council & Mungofa Gotora (Judgment No SC 75/2001 Civil Appeal No 325/2000) Annexure F