and arms. While in this position, the Complainant was questioned and threatened with death by about 15 interrogators. The Complainant further alleged that he was also electrocuted intermittently for 8 hours and a chemical substance was applied to his body. He lost control of his bodily functions, vomited blood and he was forced to drink his vomit. The Complainant submitted a certified copy of the medical report describing the injuries found on his body. Following his interrogation, at around 7pm of the same day, the Complainant was unbound and forced to write several statements implicating him and several senior MDC members in subversive activities. At around 7:30pm he was taken to Harare Police Station and booked into a cell. On the third day of his arrest, his lawyers who had obtained a High Court injunction ordering his release to court were allowed to access him. The Complainant was subsequently charged under section 5 of the Public Order and Security Act that relates to organising, planning or conspiring to overthrow the government through unconstitutional means. He then fled Zimbabwe for fear of his life. 90. In the above cases, there is one thing in common - the clear establishments of the element of fear perpetrated by identified state institutions fear which in the case, the Commission observed that “it would be reversing the clock of justice to request me complainant to attempt local remedies”. 91. In the communication under consideration however, Mr Michael Majuru alleges that he fled the country for fear of his life, that he was intimidated and harassed by the Minister of Justice and by suspected state agents. He also indicated that he received “a telephone call from a sympathetic member of the legal fraternity and the police that the Respondent State was fabricating a case against him and that he was to be arrested and incarcerated on unspecified charges as punishment for defying the Respondent’s orders”. 92. In this communication, it is clear that the Complainant has simply made general accusations and has not corroborated his allegations with documentary evidence, sworn affidavits or testimonies of others. He claims the Minister sent an Instruction through a colleague of his but there is no way of ascertaining this fact. The applicant was the President of the Administrative Court, and has not show how the instruction purportedly sent by the Minister through the Complainant’s colleague, who the Commission is not told the kind of influence he had over the Complainant, could have or did intimidate him. Apart from the direct telephone call the Complainant claims he received from the Minister on 23rd October and 24th November 2003, all the alleged threats intimidations and harassment he claims, were perpetrated by persons he suspects were government agents. Most of his allegations are unsubstantiated. For example, he indicated in paragraph 2.5.4.7 of his submissions that “the Minister expressed his displeasure with the said decision and further attempted to unduly influence and/or threaten the Complainant”. He fails to show how this attempted influence or threat by the Minister was carried out. 93. It is further observed by the Commission that the alleged threat or pressure claimed by the Complainant to have been meted by Enoch Kamushinda, who the complainant himself refers to as a suspected Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) operative, has not been substantiated: neither has the purported pressure and entrapment alleged to have been made by Mr Ben Chisvo who according to the Complainant, is a suspected CIO informer. Furthermore, the Complainant alleged he received a telephone call from a sympathetic member of the legal fraternity and the police that the Respondent State was fabricating a case against him, and that he was to be arrested and incarcerated on unspecified charges as punishment for defying the Respondent’s orders. All the above allegations are not substantiated take the latter for example, what if the “sympathetic member of the legal fraternity” was a hoax? What if he was acting on his own or wanted to benefit from the misfortune of the Complainant? His or her name is not even known. 94. It is not possible for the Commission to determine the level of intimidation or harassment that is needed to instil fear in a person to force that person to flee for their life. However, in the instant case, there is no concrete evidence to link the Complainant’s fear to the Respondent State. 95. It is therefore the opinion of the Commission that the Complainant has not sufficiently demonstrated that his life or those of his close relatives were threatened by the Respondent State, forcing him to flee the country, and as such, cannot hold that the Complainant left the country due to threats and intimidation from the State.