remedies, reparations or just satisfaction for a violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the African Charter. 41. The Complainant avers that the relatives of the deceased were unable to sue for adequate compensation for the wrongful deaths because that remedy is not recognized under Zimbabwean law. 42. The Complainant states that the burden therefore shifts to the Respondent AC HP R State to proof that remedies exist, and relate the remedies to the circumstances of this case, showing clearly how the remedies might provide adequate redress under such circumstances. 43. Finally, with respect to Article 56(7) of the African Charter, the Complainant submits that the matter is not pending in another proceeding, nor does it duplicate any petition already examined by the African Commission, or any other international tribunal. The Respondent State’s Submissions on Admissibility 44. The Respondent State argues that the Communication is improperly brought before the African Commission for two reasons – first, that it is incompatible with the African Charter and secondly, that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies. 45. On the question of incompatibility with the African Charter, the Respondent State notes that the deprivation of life is justifiable under the Constitution of Zimbabwe and an acceptable derogation under international law. The Respondent State argues that the actions that led to the death of the deceased persons and the reaction of the Respondent State thereto were in no way in contravention of the laws of Zimbabwe and 10