in the circumstances of his case. As outlined above, the Complainant maintains that because he was forced to flee from Lesotho, he cannot be required to exhaust local remedies because the Respondent State made it impossible for him to access the remedies by revoking his passport and denying him entry into Lesotho. To that end, the Complainant has maintained that his situation is akin to that of the Complainants in Jawara v The Gambia and Amnesty International &RADDHO v Zambia , and has urged the Commission to follow the precedents established in the said Communications. 66. To determine this issue, certain factual issues must be put in proper context. First, the Commission notes that contrary to the Complainant's claims, he did not flee Lesotho as such. From his own submissions, he travelled to South Africa to lodge a complaint with the UNHCR about the harassment to which he was subjected in Lesotho. He clearly intended to come back to Lesotho but his passport was unfortunately revoked while he was still in South Africa. 67. Secondly, the Complainant has not cited any instances where he was prevented from availing himself of local remedies. No instances have been brought to the Commission's attention where the Complainant was not given a fair hearing by the Respondent State's courts. On the contrary and as outlined above in his submissions, he had unimpeded access to the Respondent State's courts which in many circumstances made Orders in his favour. Even while in South Africa, the Complainant was able to initiate court proceedings in the Respondent State without impediment through his lawyers, some of which were successful. 68. Thirdly, the Commission notes that the Complainant has not alleged that the revocation of his passport and citizenship did not follow due process. 69. The above serves to distinguish the present case from the Jawara and RADDHO cases in which the expulsion of the Complainants did not follow due process and the Complainants were not given any opportunity to challenge their expulsion from the Respondent State in court. 70. The Commission observes that the Submissions of both parties clearly demonstrate that local remedies were available. The Complainant was able to challenge the Permanent Secretary of Home Affair's decision not to swear him in before the High Court of Lesotho which passed judgement on 13 September 2012 in his favour. When the High Court decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the Complainant's passport was revoked, he was able to successfully apply for an urgent order before the same High Court for an interdiction order against the Department of Home Affairs. This order was also successfully appealed. 71. On the issue of the seizure of his property, the Complainant was able to successfully approach the Tax Tribunal which heard the case on 29 and 30 August 2013 and its judgment is still pending. He also successfully approached the High Court for an Order to restrain the Lesotho Revenue Authority from collecting rents from his tenant and the order was granted on 22 November 2013 and successfully appealed and reversed on 4 December 2013. 72. The above point to the fact that there were available and effective remedies which were sufficient to redress the alleged violations domestically. The Complainant had the opportunity to challenge the actions of the Lesotho government in court, which he successfully did. That the Government successfully appealed against the court orders cannot amount to a denial of justice because the same avenue of appeal was equally open to the Complainant and he failed to avail himself of it. 73 . The successful appeal of these cases cannot also be construed as Government meddling with the local courts as the Complainant alleges just as unsuccessful domestic litigation cannot in all cases be construed to be evidence of lack of local remedies. That the Complainant was no longer in Lesotho is also of no consequence because it has been shown that he faced no impediment in initiating proceedings from abroad, some of which were still pending in court at the time the present Communication was submitted. It therefore appears that bringing the Communication before this Commission was premature as there were still available, effective and sufficient remedies which the Complainant could make use of. The Complainant's claim of indigence is also of no consequence given that some of the cases were still pending before domestic courts at the time the Communication was brought before the Commission. 8