43. The Complainants therefore argue that, ‘one can safely conclude that the failure by the government of Zimbabwe to respect court orders thereby denying local remedies to victims of human 1 rights violations amounts to constructive exhaustion of local remedies’. 44. The Complainants urged the Commission to draw inspiration from the Inter-American Court decision on the same principle, which states as follows; “…when remedies are denied for trivial reasons or without examination on merits, or if there is proof of the existence of a practice or policy tolerated by the government, the effect of which is to impede persons from invoking internal remedies that would normally be available to others, resort to such remedies becomes a senseless formality.” Respondent State’s arguments 45. The Respondent State relies on two grounds: 1. Disparaging language (Article 56(3)) 46. The Respondent State submits that the language used in the communication is disparaging to the Republic of Zimbabwe, in particular, the Department of Immigration in Zimbabwe and, as such, the communication should be considered inadmissible. The Respondent State claims that the language used to describe the deportation and events preceding the deportation of the Complainant expose the State and the Department of Immigration of Zimbabwe to unnecessary ridicule. It argues that international attention garnered by the Land Reform Programme, is exacerbated by such disparaging statements are [sic], among other things, that there is no rule of law in Zimbabwe, court orders are not enforced and crimes against humanity are committed by high ranking State officials. 2. Exhaustion of local remedies (Article 56(5)) 47. Concerning Article 56.5, the Respondent State submits that the Complainants have not attempted to exhaust local remedies and, as such, the communication should be considered inadmissible. According to the Respondent State, the victim, while still resident in the Republic of Zimbabwe, approached the local courts on a number of occasions seeking redress. The State argues that the victim does not, however, need to be physically in Zimbabwe in order to avail himself of available domestic remedies. That he can instruct his lawyers from wherever he is and the relevant action can be done through his lawyers. The State argues further that his lawyers could, for instance, make issue of the alleged contempt of court by Immigration Officials, and also push for the revocation of the deportation order and subsequent reinstatement of the victim’s residence permit. 48. Consequently, the Respondent State argues that the communication does not meet the requirements of Articles 56.3 and56.5 and should be declared inadmissible. 49. During its oral submission, the Respondent State submitted that following discussions with the Complainants, it decided to abandon its argument of disparaging language, but maintains the issue of non-exhaustion of local remedies. Decision 50. When the parties made oral submissions before the Commission, the Respondent State submitted that, it had decided to abandon the argument on disparaging language but maintained the grounds on issue of non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission takes note of that submission, and would not make a ruling on Article 56.3, since the parties are not at issue on the question of disparaging language. 51. Both parties made submissions on Article 56.5 regarding the question of non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission has stated in previous decisions, (see paragraph 39 above) that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies, presupposes existence of effective judicial remedies. Administrative or quasi-judicial remedies which do not operate impartially are considered as