such a situation there was no realistic hope of getting a firm and fair hearing from judicial system that had been so undermined by the Respondent State. State Party's Response 57. Responding to the Complainant's submission relating to the effect of the Clemency Order, the Respondent State submitted that the victims of the criminal acts covered by the Clemency Order could have and could still institute civil suits and sought to be compensated, which according to the Respondent State, would be more beneficial to the victims than the imprisonment of the perpetrators of the crimes. 58. In its oral submissions during the 33rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission, the Respondent State argued that the Complainant could have sought alternative remedies under Section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe × 24 Enforcement of protective provisions (1) If any person alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relationto him (or, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such a contravention in relation to the detained person), then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), apply to the Supreme Court for redress. [Subsection as amended by section 9 of Act 15 of 1990 - Amendment No. 10] . This provision accords aggrieved persons the right to seek redress from the Supreme Court where it is alleged that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to them. 59. The Respondent State also submitted that the Complainant had the right and could have challenged the legality of the Clemency Order in Court. The Respondent State argued that there had been cases in Zimbabwe where persons had challenged the legality of the prerogative of the President and that such a challenge was before the courts of Zimbabwe. The Respondent State argued that challenging the legality of Clemency Order would have eventually paved the way for prosecuting the persons that committed those criminal acts covered by the Clemency Order; therefore by neglecting to challenge the legality of the President's prerogative, the Complainant had failed to exhaust local remedies. The Respondent State argued further that until the courts in Zimbabwe rule otherwise on the matter of the legality of the presidential prerogative, the Complainant could still utilise the courts in Zimbabwe to challenge the legality of the Clemency Order. 60. With respect to the situation prevailing during the period in question, the Respondent State admitted that of the numerous cases reported to the police, only a small percentage of the murder cases were committed to the High Court. The Respondent State argues that, at the time its criminal justice system could not have been expected to investigate and prosecute all the cases and ensure that remedies were given, bearing in mind the considerable number of cases that were reported. 61. The situation notwithstanding, the Respondent State argued that the Complainant could have attempted to ask the Attorney General to invoke his powers under Section 76(4a) × 76 Attorney-General (4a) The Attorney-General may require the Commissioner of Police to investigate and report to him on any matter which, in the Attorney-General's opinion, relates to any criminal offence or alleged or suspected criminal offence, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with that requirement. [Subsection as inserted by section 12 of Act 4 of 1989 - Amendment No. 8] . Section 76(4a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe mandates the Attorney General to "require the Commissioner of Police to investigate and report to him on any matter which, in the Attorney General's opinion, relates to any criminal offence or alleged or suspected criminal offence, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with that requirement". The Respondent State argued that except in the case of Tichaona Chiminya and Talent Mabika, the Complainant had made no attempts to request the Attorney General to invoke Section 76(4a) in relation to the reported cases neither did they seek to find out from the Attorney General what course of action had been taken with respect to those cases. 62. The Respondent State also submitted that if all else was not possible, the Complainant could have instituted private prosecutions against those persons alleged to have committed crimes and had not been 6