local remedies. It notes that Chapter 7.06 of the High Court Act, and Chapter 7.05 of the Supreme Court Act permits any person to make his application to either Court through his or her legal representative. Furthermore, the Respondent State notes Section 50(1) of the High Court Act which provides that “Every person shall be entitled to be present if he so wishes at the hearing of his trial, action or appeal.” According to the Respondent State therefore, the Victim,5 could have sought local remedies from the authorities in Zimbabwe without being physically present in the jurisdiction, instead of opting to approach the African Commission directly. 42. The Respondent State cites the African Commission‟s decision in Mr. Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe6, where the Commission ruled that where national laws so provide, it would not be necessary for an applicant to be present in the jurisdiction to personally make an application to the courts. The Respondent State therefore argues that the Victim‟s absence from the country did not inhibit his freedom to make an application to the Constitutional Court for redress. 43. The Respondent State further submits that, contrary to the Complainant‟s submissions that local remedies are not available and effective, it has discharged its onus to prove that remedies are not only available, but also effective. According to the Respondent State, there is no indication in the Complaint that the conduct of State Officials was such that it impeded the Complainant from exhausting local remedies, adding that the Complainant never even made an attempt to exhaust them. 5 Who is referred to as the Complainant by the Respondent State in this Communication. 6 Communication 307/07- Mr. Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) ACHPR. 11