Procedure 11. By letter ACHPR/LPROT/COMM/ZIM/307/2005/ARM of 4th October 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the communication and informed the Complainant that the matter would be considered for seizure at the 38th Ordinary Session of the African Commission, scheduled from 21st November-5th December 2005, in Banjul, The Gambia. 12. During the 38th Ordinary Session held from 21st November-5th December 2005, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to be seized thereof. 13. On 15th December 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties accordingly, and requested the Respondent State to submit its arguments on the admissibility of the communication. The Secretariat of the African Commission forwarded a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent State. 14. On 13th March 2006, a reminder was sent to the Respondent State requesting it to submit its arguments on the admissibility of the communication. 15. On 10th April 2006, the Secretariat received the Complainant's submissions on admissibility. 16. During the 39th Ordinary Session held from 11th - 25th May 2006, the African Commission decided to defer consideration of the communication on admissibility to its 40th Ordinary Session scheduled to take place from 15th - 29th November 2006, pending the Respondent State's submission on admissibility. 17. By letter of 14th July 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties of the Commission's decision. 18. During the 40th Ordinary Session held from 15th - 29th November 2006, the African Commission decided to defer consideration of the communication on admissibility to the 41st Ordinary Session. 19. On 24th November 2006, the Secretariat received the Respondent State's submission on admissibility. 20. By letter dated 11th December 2006, both parties were informed of the Commission's intention to consider the communication on admissibility during its 41st Ordinary Session. 21. On 3th May 2007, the Secretariat received additional submissions on admissibility from the Complainant in response to the Respondent State's submission on admissibility. 22. During the 41st Ordinary Session of the African Commission held from 16th - 30th May 2007, the African Commission decided to further deferred to its 42nd Ordinary Session a decision on admissibility to enable the Secretariat prepare a draft decision. Summary of Complainant's submission on admissibility 23. The Complainant submits that he has locus standi before the Commission as the communication is brought by himself, a citizen of Zimbabwe. Regarding compatibility, the Complainant submits that the communication raises prima facie violations of the Charter, committed by the Respondent State. 24. He submits further that in accordance with Article 56(4), the evidence he has submitted reveal that the communication is not based exclusively on news disseminated by the mass media, adding that it is based on first hand evidence from him, including reports by reputable human rights organisations. 25. On the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in accordance with Article 56(5), the Complainant states that the remedy in his particular circumstance is not available because he cannot make use of local remedies, that he was forced to flee Zimbabwe for fear of his life after surviving torturous experiences in the hands of the Respondent State due to his activities as a human rights defender. The Complainant submits that the onus is on the Respondent State to demonstrate that remedies are available, citing the Commission's decisions on communications 71/922 and [147/95], 14[9]/963 26. The Complainant draws the African Commission's attention to its decision on Rights International v Nigeria4 where the Commission held that a Complainant's inability to pursue local remedies following his flight for fear of his life to Benin, and was subsequently granted asylum was sufficient to establish a standard for constructive exhaustion of local remedies. He concludes by noting that considering the fact that he was no longer in the Respondent State's territory where remedies could be sought, and the fact that he fled the country against his will due to threat to his life, remedies could not be pursued without impediments. 27. The Complainant also challenges the effectiveness of the remedies, noting that remedies are effective only where they offer a prospect of success. He claims the Respondent State treats court rulings that go against it with indifference and disfavour, and says he does not expect that in his case, any decision of the court would be adhered to. He says there was a tendency in the Respondent State to ignore court rulings that went against it and adds that the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights has documented at least 12 2

Select target paragraph3