120. Thus, by refusing to comply with the High Court orders, staying the deportation of Mr Meldrum and requiring the Respondent State to produce him before the Court, the Respondent State undermined the independence of the Courts. This was a violation of Article 26 of the African Charter. Holding 121. In view of the above reasoning, the African Commission: holds that the Respondent State, the Republic of Zimbabwe, has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 7.1.a and 7.1.b, 9, 12.4 and 26 of the African Charter. The African Commission recommends that the Respondent State should: a. Take urgent steps to ensure court decisions are respected and implemented; b. Rescind the deportation orders against Mr Andrew Meldrum, so that he can return to Zimbabwe, if he so wishes, being a person who had permanent residence status prior to his deportation. The status quo ante to be restored; c. Ensure that the Supreme Court finalises the determination of the application by Mr Meldrum, on the denial of accreditation; d. In the alternative, taking into account that the AIPPA has undergone considerable amendments, grant accreditation to Mr Andrew Meldrum, so that he can resume his right to practice journalism; and e. Report to the African Commission within six months on the implementation of these recommendations. th Adopted during the 6 Extra-Ordinary Session of the ACHPR, Banjul, The Gambia, April, 2009. Footnotes 1. As was established in the cases of Godinez Cruz vs. Honduras (Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Series C No. 5 at 69, John D Ouko vs. Kenya (ACHPR Decision 232/99) and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme vs. Zambia (ACHPR Decision 71/92). 2. In communication 219/98 Legal Defence Centre/The Gambia, the victim, one Mr Sule Musa was deported by th the Gambian authorities to Nigeria. The Commission sought clarification during its 25 Ordinary Session, whether the Complainant could have recourse to domestic remedies, to which no response was received. The Commission declared the communication inadmissible, observing that;“…the victim does not have to be physically present in a country to avail himself of available domestic remedies, such could be done by his counsel… Rather than approach the Commission first, the Complainant ought to have exhausted available local remedies in the Gambia…” (emphasis added). It must be stated here that the distinguishing factor relied by the Commission in the Zimbabwe case is the role played by the State in impeding access to the local remedies available. 3. Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme and Others vs. Angola (2000) AHRLR 18[/url] (ACHPR 1997) at para. 18 4. See para. 3 (supra) 5. See The [UN] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18 6. See Communication 241/2001 - Purohit and Moore / The Gambia, para 49 . 7. 292/04, Communication 292/2004 th 8. See People v Jacobs, 27 California Appeal, 3d 246, 103 California Rep 536, 543, 14 Amendment, US Constitution 9. See Dorsey v Solomon, DCMd., 435 F. Supp. 725. 10. Communication 293/2004 11. 347 US 483 (1954) 12. www.legal-explanations.com 13. Communication 159/1996 14. Id. Para 23[sic] 15. The UN Human Rights Committee, ICCPR, A/57/40 vol. I (2002) at para. 76 (13) 16. Ibid. 17. See the views expressed by K Ryan, in "Judges, Courts and Tribunals", paper presented at the Australian Judicial Conference Symposium on Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law at the Turn of the Century, Australian National University, Canberra, 2 November 1996.