90. The Complainants aver that the Commission has established that the mere fact that a Complainant is located outside the Respondent State does not provide an exception to the requirement to exhaust local remedies 13 .However, the Commission has also consistently held that Complainants who escape for fear of their life could not be expected to return to the Respondent State to exhaust local remedies. Accordingly the Complainants make reference to Rights International v Nigeria, where the Commission held that the Complainant was "unable to pursue any domestic remedy following his flight for fear . of his life" 14, Alhassen Abubakar v Ghana, where the Commission held that it would not be logical to require an individual to return ta, State where he or she has allegedly suffered violations of their fundamental rights and from which he or she had fled, in order to bring a claim for reparc:1tion'fJ 5 and particularly, in Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe, where the Complainant fled Zimbabwe for fear of his life after having been tortured 1:>y the Zimbabwe Republic Police, the Commission established that no attempts need to be made to exhaust local remedies16 • the 91. The Complainants submit that the. above facts are similar to those in the present Communication because the Victim was arbitrarily arrested, detained incommunicado and systematically tortured for almost two years by individuals belonging to Ugandan Security Services, the Ugandan Army and Ugandan Police1 7. The length of the arbitrary detention and the severity of his to;ture over a long period of time naturally instilled r. high level of fear in the Victim and left him physically impaired and traumatized18 . The Complainants referred to the Commission's decision in Jawara v The Gambia, where the Commission held that "it would be reversing the clock of justice to request the Complainant to attempt local remedies" .19 > . ,, ' 92. The Complainants argue that the Victim's fear for his life if he returned to Uganda is rein.forced by the absence of any legislation and any programme that would provide protection against reprisals and threats, should he plan to file a Complaint against the State Agencies that allegedly were responsible for the violations forming the subject matter of the 13 Communication 219/1998-Legal Defence Centre v The Gambia,para 17. 14 Communication 215/98- Rights International v Nigeria, para 24. 15 Communication 103/1993-Alhassen Abubakar v Ghana, para 6. 16 Gabriel Schumba v Zimbabwe- paras 89, 90. 17 See initial Communication, Annex 2- the Applicants affidavit. 18 See initial Communication, Annex 4- Medical Report. 19 Communication 147/95- Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia, para 40.