Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe of the High Court Act provides that every person shall be entitled to be present if he so wishes at the hearing of his trial, action or appeal. 54. The Respondent State submits that Section 51 of the High Court Act specifically provides that: Subject to Section fifty, rules of the court and any other law, in all proceedings before the High Court the parties may appear in person or be represented and appear by any legal practitioner registered in terms of the Legal Practitioners Act (Chapter 27:07). 55. The Respondent State contends that the Victim can, therefore seek local remedies from the authorities in Zimbabwe without being physically present in the jurisdiction. It further states that in Communication 307/2005, the Commission ruled that where the national laws so provided, it would not be necessary for an applicant to be present in the jurisdiction to personally make an application to the courts. This also shows, the Respondent State argues, the courts in Zimbabwe actually offer effective remedies to alleged violations of rights. 56. The Respondent State submits that the onus is on the state to prove that the remedies are not only available, but are effective, and that there are remedies available to the Victim if their rights were violated. 57. The Respondent State further argues that the Constitution of Zimbabwe guarantees the independence of the judiciary in the exercise of its interpretative function in accordance with the United Nations Principles on an Independent Judiciary. The Respondent State also agrees that it is also in conformity with the guidelines of the African Commission on the right of a fair trial. 58. The Respondent State states that the Commission had this to say in the Jawara case: 14 11 th Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR I Page