77. The African Commission was faced with a similar situation in Mr. Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe,22 where the Complainant also argued that even if local remedies were available, they were not effective because the Respondent State has the tendency of ignoring court rulings taken against it. . The African Commission held that “It is not enough for a Complainant to simply conclude that because the State failed to comply with a court decision in one instance, it will do the same in their own case. Each case must be treated on its own merits”23. 78. Thus, granted that a remedy must offer a prospect of success, the Commission can only conclude that it is indeed ineffective if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probability that the remedy, despite its existence, would indeed not redress the violation(s) alleged. Nonetheless, in the Communication in question, the Complainant has not made any attempt to exhaust local remedies, short of saying that they are not available or effective on the ground that the courts in the Respondent State do not comply with their decisions. 79. Accordingly, apart from establishing that the evidence before this Commission is not sufficient to provide clarity on the issues raised, the Commission is also ascertaining that the Respondent State has not been given the opportunity to investigate the allegations and provide redress within its jurisdiction. 22 n 7 above para 83. n 7 above para 84. See also Communication 308/07 – Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR paras 101 - 103 23 22