Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe 23. In accordance with Article 56(3), the Complainant contends, the Communication is not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against Zimbabwe or its institutions or against the African Union and its institutions. 24. The Complainant submits that the facts of the Communication were compiled from the Victim's written statements to the Complainant, medical affidavits, records detailing the injuries the Victim sustained, and records from the counseling session that he received in the hospital. Therefore, the Complainant argues, in accordance with Article 56(4) of the Charter, the Communication and the Charter violations that it describes are not based on news disseminated through the mass media. 25. In relation to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5), the Complainant avers that the African Commission has recognized certain exceptions to the requirement, and that the case at hand falls within those exceptions as the African Commission has found that the requirement under Article 56(5) need not be met where domestic remedies are not available, effective or sufficient. In the case at hand, the Complainant argues, domestic remedies were not available, effective or sufficient because: i. The Victim was forced to flee Zimbabwe out of a generalized fear for his life, and note that he currently resides abroad and fears returning to Zimbabwe; ii. The Zimbabwean court system lacks independence, and pressure from the executive branch would make any victory in court unlikely for the Victim; iii. The Zimbabwean authorities have been unwilling to enforce court orders in cases seen to implicate political issues, and have generally treated human rights violators with impunity. 6IPage 11 th Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR