that the Respondent State treats court rulings that go against it withindifference and disfavour, and that he does not expect that in his case, any decision of the court would be adhered to. He said there was a tendency in the Respondent State to ignore court rulings that went against it and added that the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights had documented at least 12 instances where the State had ignored court rulings since 2000. He cited the ruling of the High Court in the Commercial Farmers Union, the Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto cases, where, in the latter case, the duo were allegedly abducted and tortured by the army. He concluded that given the prevailing circumstances and the nature of his complaint and the Respondent State’s well publicised practice of non-enforcement of court decisions, his case had no prospect of success if local remedies were pursued and according to him, not worth pursuing. Finally, the Complainant submitted that he could not have exhausted local remedies as any such exhaustion would have to comply with the States Liabilities Act which prevents the Complainant from suing the Respondent State after the expiration of two months of the date of the incident complained of, no prior notice has been given. 44. The Complainant further submitted that the communication was submitted 22 months after the violation because he hoped that the situation in the country would improve to enable him utilise domestic remedies. He said there is instead a deterioration of the situation and hope of improvement is highly unlikely in the near future, adding that “continuing to wait whilst the Complainant is undergoing tremendous psychological torture and suffering attributable to his persecution will undoubted cause irreparable harm”. The Complainant added that since he fled to South Africa he has been undergoing psycho-therapy and was not in a position to submit his communication to the Commission. 45. The Complainant indicated other reasons that prevented him from submitting his complaint on time, including the fact that the judiciary abides by a code of conduct in terms of which they do not ordinarily speak out and take positions against the establishment, noting that out of eight or so members who have left Zimbabwe because of persecution, he is the only one who was speaking out. He added that he was afraid for the lives of members of his immediate family that were at risk of persecution because of him and that he was unable to submit immediately for want of resources and facilities, noting that the submission was made possible through the assistance and support of well wishers. 46. Finally, Complainant further submitted that the communication had not been before any other international body for settlement as required by Article 56.7. Respondent State’s submission on admissibility 47. The Respondent State briefly restated the facts of the communication and indicated that it will attend to the matters of fact, pertaining to the complaint “in order to put the communication in proper perspective”. The State submitted that the Complainant was appointed to the Office of Administrative Court President in terms of Section 79 of the Constitution at Zimbabwe, read together with the Administrative Court Act. The State added that while performing his functions as a Magistrate, Presidents of the Administrative Court are not judges, noting that in essence, the Complainant was not a judge. 48. According to the State, the Complainant was supposed to be in a court in Bulawayo, but due to his poor health and his relationship with the Minister of Justice, he was appointed to the Administrative Court in Harare. The State noted that Complainant was a sick man throughout his whole duration at the court and added that “in fact from the time of his appointment as a Court President, the Complainant used to travel to South Africa to seek medical attention”. th st 49. The State claims that Complainant applied for two weeks vacation from 9 to 31 December 2003 and went to South Africa for medical attention. That he then tendered his resignation on th 14 January 2004. The State observed that even though the letter has a Zimbabwean address, an examination of the delivery slip showed that it had been dispatched from South Africa. The State concluded that the above circumstances which show how Complainant left the country do not amount to forced flight as he claims. 50. The State questioned why Complainant would take steps to regularise his absence from office by applying for vacation leave and tender his resignation to the Minister who was threatening him.