98. In relation to his third argument, the Complainant notes that with regard to a criminal violation the Commission has held that the obligation is on the State Party to investigate and bring the accused person to court, and that one cannot demand of the Complainants to exhaust domestic remedies in such a case. In this regard he states that the Respondent State had failed to initiate criminal investigations and prosecutions despite ample notice, 31 noting the jurisprudence of the Commission which has held that if a State Party had ample notice and time within which to remedy alleged violations and the State Party has not taken appropriate steps to do so, domestic remedies are necessarily either not available or are not effective or sufficient to redress the violations alleged. 99. The Respondent State had not provided any response specific to this argument. However, the State avers that the only action taken by the Complainant to exhaust local remedies was the complaint filed on his behalf with the NHRC. In addition stating that the Complainant refused to appear before the police administration committee established to investigate his complaint within the process of the NHRC' s consideration of his case. 100.The Complainant submits that there is no obligation on him to make an application to the NHRC for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies, since the remedies to be exhausted are judicial remedies. In relation to the assertion of the State that an investigation is ongoing, the Complainant submits that the State does not provide sufficient information about the terms of reference of the investigation, whether witnesses had been heard, which evidence had been produced and whether there had been any findings. In addition, the Complainant submits that neither he nor his lawyer were aware of or contacted in relation to the investigations, stating that even if there is such an investigation, it does not provide an effective remedy. 101. The Commission in this regard reiterates its jurisprudence that in respect of a criminal violation the duty is on the State to investigate the alleged violation, and that there is no duty on the Complainant to bring a civil claim or pursue private prosecution in such a case in order to exhaust local remedies. 32 However, it is a logical conclusion that where a State is not aware of the alleged violation it cannot be expected to take any action to investigate and address such an alleged violation. Therefore, in order to show that the State had the As evidence that the State had ample notice and time, the Complainant makes reference to complaints he made to the prison authorities about the abuse suffered at the hands of the NISS; international and national media reports about his alleged arrest, detention, torture and ill b·eatment, a protest outside the offices of the National Council of Press and Publications; public advocacy for his release; knowledge by the UN Independent Expert on the Human rights situation in S and a complaint filed on his behalf with U1e National Commission of Human Rights. 1-1 oN HUM--1,.,, 0 32 Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwe Humnn Rights NGO ~ ..._r.J,"in't ~!1W1ibt~-i /, o" 31 ' v 23 l Page