state agents. The relatives of the deceased persons were unable to sue for adequate compensation for the wrongful deaths since that remedy is not recognized under Zimbabwean law. The Complainant has also attached documentation to prove the deaths. 53. In addition, the Complainant extensively quotes the remarks by Professor Geoff Feltoe, a leading authority on tort law in Zimbabwe. The AC HP R Complainant also makes reference to authors and case law from the English jurisdiction showing how they changed their law, which was similar to Zimbabwean law, in order to correct this anomalous and inequitable position of the law. The Respondent State has not undertaken similar action through Parliament and thus the inequitable position remains. It is submitted that in the circumstances of this case there are no available domestic remedies for the Complainant to exhaust. 54. The Complainant adds that in order to meet its burden of proof under the domestic remedies rule, the Respondent State in the present case needs to produce evidence of the availability and accessibility of the domestic remedies in practice. The Respondent State will need to relate any remedy that it alleges to the circumstances of this case, showing clearly how the remedy might provide adequate redress in the circumstances of the case.1 55. The Respondent State does not deny the fact that there is no domestic recourse available to the Complainant, but rather argues that the latter is seeking for the passing of a law that does not exist in any jurisdiction in the world and that the Complainant should lobby other organizations that share its views so that such a legislation could be adopted. The assertion by the Respondent State that the question of remedies to parents has no legal basis because the Draft Principles are not yet law is unfounded. 1 See Communication 458/91 - Mukong v Cameroon (1991) 13