with the provisions of Article 56 (5) or to show cause why it is impracticable to do so.”14 69. The facts in the instant Communication reveal that the Victim who has fled the country is represented by the Complainant. In view of the situation at hand, where the Victim is no longer in the country, the representative of the Victim could have attempted to exhaust local remedies on behalf of the Victim. 70. The above notwithstanding, even if the representative was not in a position to exhaust local remedies for whatever reasons, any other person could have represented the Victim in the local courts as required by national laws. The African Commission therefore reasons, as was the case in Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe that physical presence is not mandatory to access local remedies, and so the Complainant cannot claim that local remedies are not available to him.15 Hence, there was no attempt to exhaust local remedies and the African Commission will not be swayed by the fact that the Victim feared for his life. 71. With respect to the second ground submitted by the Complainant for not exhausting local remedies, the Complainant indicates that domestic remedies are not available and effective because there is no prospect of success. He avers that due to the situation of the judicial system in Zimbabwe, the availability of local remedies is not sufficiently certain, which is aggravated by the prevailing trend of non-compliance with court Communication 361/08- J.E Zitha & P.J.L.Zitha (represented by Prof. Dr. Liesbeth Zegveld) v Mozambique, Para 108. 14 15 n 7 above para 82. 19