instances where the State has ignored court rulings since 2000. He cites the ruling of the High Court in the Commercial Farmers Union case and the Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto case where the duo were allegedly abducted and tortured by the army. He concludes that given the prevailing circumstances in the Respondent State, the nature of his complaint, and the Respondent State's well publicised practice of non-enforcement of court decisions, his case has no prospect of success if local remedies were pursued, and according to him, not worth pursuing. 28. The Complainant submits further that the communication has been submitted within a reasonable time as required by Article 56(6) and concludes that the communication has not been settled by any other international body. Summary of Respondent State's submission on Admissibility 29. The Respondent State briefly restates the facts of the communication and indicates that the facts as submitted by the Complainant 'have a number of gaps'. The State submits that the Complainant makes general allegations without substantiating, citing for example, the Complainant's allegation that he was assaulted, abused and was denied access to the toilet when remanded. The State wonders why the Complainant did not bring all these alleged degrading treatment to the attention of the Magistrate when he was brought before the latter. The State also questions why the Complainant or his lawyer did not raise the alleged threats to the Complainant's life before the Magistrate when he made four appearances before the latter. The State concluded that the Complainant has failed to substantiate his alleged fear and threats to his life and is of the opinion that the Complainant left the country on his own volition and not as a result of any fear occasioned by any of its agents. 30. On the question of admissibility, the State submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible because, according to the State, it is not in conformity with Articles 56(2), 56(5) and 56(6) of the Charter. 31. The State submits further that the communication is incompatible because it makes a general allegation of human rights violations and does not substantiate the violations, adding that the facts do not show a prima facie violation of the provisions of the Charter, noting that [quote]'basically the facts and issues in dispute do not fall within the rationae materiae and rationae personae of the jurisdiction of the Commission'[quote]. 32. On the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5), the State submits that local remedies are available to the Complainant, citing section 24 × Enforcement of protective provisions (1) If any person alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him (or, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such a contravention in relation to the detained person), then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), apply to the Supreme Court for redress. [Subsection as amended by section 9 of Act 15 of 1990 - Amendment No. 10] (2) If in any proceedings in the High Court or in any court subordinate to the High Court any question arises as to the contravention of the Declaration of Rights, the person presiding in that court may, and if so requested by any party to the proceedings shall, refer the question to the Supreme Court unless, in his opinion, the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious. [Subsection as amended by section 9 of Act 15 of 1990 - Amendment No. 10] (3) Where in any proceedings such as are mentioned in subsection (2) any such question as is therein mentioned is not referred to the Supreme Court, then, without prejudice to the right to raise that question on any appeal from the determination of the court in those proceedings, no application for the determination of that question shall lie to the Supreme Court under subsection (1). [Subsection as amended by section 13 of Act 25 of 1981 - Amendment No. 2] (4) The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction-- (a) to hear and determine any application made by any person pursuant to subsection (1) or to determine without a hearing any such application which, in its opinion, is merely frivolous or vexatious; and (b) to determine any question arising in the case of any person which is referred to it pursuant to subsection (2); and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of the Declaration of Rights: Provided that the Supreme Court may decline to exercise its powers under this subsection if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are or have been available to the person concerned under other provisions of this Constitution or under any other law. [Subsection as amended by section 20 of Act 23 of 1987 - Amendment No. 7 and by section 9 of Act 15 of 3

Select target paragraph3