independent and judgements are implemented, or enforced without any recriminations on the part of the judiciary. A suspicion of lack of independence on the part of the judiciary is not synonymous to lack of independence. 56. The African Commission has held in several of its decisions that the rationale of the rule to exhaust local remedies is to allow the State concerned an opportunity to remedy a grievance through its own domestic legal system. However, the African Commission has gone ahead to state that it will not hold this requirement to apply literally in cases where it is impracticable or undesirable for the Complainant to seize the domestic courts. Accordingly, the African Commission in Dawda Jawara v The Gambia stated that for a Complainant to be able to exhaust local remedies, such remedies must meet three basic criteria - they must be available, effective and sufficient The African Commission went on to state with respect to that case that, if the availability of a remedy is not evident it 'cannot be invoked by the State to the detriment of the Complainant'. 57. In the present communication, the Complainant argues that local remedies are not only unavailable, but even if available would be ineffective and insufficient. A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment. In the Jawara case, the African Commission held that a remedy is considered available only if the Complainant can make use of it in the circumstances of his case. It is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 58. The availability of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the Complainant cannot turn to the judiciary of his or her country because of generalised fear for his or her life (or even those of his or her relatives), local remedies would be considered to be unavailable to him or her. 59. The Complainant in this case alleges that he was tortured by the Security apparatus of the Respondent State. He claims further that he was forced to sign several statements implicating himself. He was then released and 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' which is a treasonable offence carrying the death penalty. The Complainant claims that he fled the country against his will after the incident, fearing for his life. 60. Admittedly, the Complainant is currently outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent State. But does his absence outside the Respondent State's jurisdiction make domestic remedies unavailable to him? Would the principle of unavailability of domestic remedies to the complainant be negated by the Respondent State's allegation that the complainant had fled the country because of criminal charges, and not because of fear for his life? In other words would the criminal charges pending against the complainant disqualify him from the benefit of the enjoyment of the exception to Article 56(5)? 61. The question, which remains to be answered, in view of the questions posed above is whether or not the remedies were available or unavailable, and further if they were available, were they effective? 62. The African Commission has made a number of decisions on the exception to Article 56(5), in respect of unavailability of domestic resources on account of a complainant being outside his/her country. In the Jawara case, the African Commission held that there is no doubt that the Complainant (Jawara); '.....had been overthrown by the military, he was tried in absentia, former Ministers and Members of Parliament of his government have been detained and there was terror and fear for lives in the country. It would be an affront to common sense and logic to require the Complainant to return to his country to exhaust local remedies.' The African Commission went on to say that, '.....there is no doubt that there was a generalised fear perpetrated by the regime as alleged by the Complainant. This created an atmosphere not only in the mind of the author but also in the minds of right thinking people that returning to his country at that material moment, for whatever reason, would be risky to his life. Under such circumstances, domestic remedies cannot be said to have been available to the Complainant'. 63. In the present case, the Complainant has stated that he fled from the jurisdiction of the domestic courts when he was allegedly tortured and charged with a treasonable offence. The state has not disputed the allegation by the complainant that he was tortured. Indeed it confirms that he was charged with treasonable charges, under the Public Order and Security Act. The State argues that local remedies are available, that the Complainant would have pursued the local remedies, and further that he fled Zimbabwe for reasons other than for fear of his life. What remains is for the Commission to determine whether or not the complainant's apprehension of fear for his life, would qualify as an exception to Article 56 (5) based on the constructive exhaustion of local remedies rule. 64. The African Commission was informed by the Respondent State (a claim the Complainant has not denied or challenged) that the Complainant left Zimbabwe on or about 17 January 2003. He returned to 5