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. 72. Articles 15 and 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provide for the prohibition of torture and the legal procedure for enforcement mechanism against torture. The procedure is very clear. It establishes the judicial body responsible for the enforcement of, as well as its powers, and the parameters of its jurisdiction. In that respect, the African Commission had to look into the Zimbabwe Constitution to determine whether or not the remedy was available. Indeed it finds that a remedy was available to the Complainant in the form of the Supreme Court, but states that the remedy was not effective, under the circumstances. The ineffectiveness of the Supreme Court to enforce its investigation orders against the police in the Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto case leaves a lot to be desired for the top most judicial body in Zimbabwe. Indeed that was a clear indicate for an impediment as well as ineffectiveness of the remedy. 73. The Jawara case stated the following; "...A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint." It states further that "...The Commission has stressed that, remedies the availability of which is not evident, cannot be invoked by the State to the detriment of the complainant" ".....The existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not in theory but also in practice. Failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Therefore, if the applicant cannot turn to the judiciary of his country because of the generalised fear for his life (or even those of relatives) local remedies would be considered to be unavailable." 74. What is stated in the above quotation is a clear indication that the remedy was not available, it would not have redressed the complaint, and it did not inspire any prospect for success. Similarly, the Complainant could not avail himself of the same remedy due to the principle of constructive exhaustion of local remedies, by virtue of being outside the country, due to the fear for his life. The Complainant is the only person entitled to decide who shall represent him, in the event that he wished to invoke the domestic remedies, should they have been available. It is not for the state to determine the complainant's legal representation by NGOs or any other counsel. The African Commission has adopted Guidelines on fair trial, elaborating Article 7(c) of the Charter, which states that, "[e]very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: the right to defence, including the right to be defended by a counsel of his choice." 75. The African Commission therefore finds that even though in theory the domestic remedies were available, they were not effective, and could not be pursued without much impediment. The two day presence in Zimbabwe by the Complainant does not dispel the fear he was labouring under, since he was a victim of torture, and thus the constructive exhaustion of remedies would still apply to him. 76. In the Rights International/Nigeria Case, the African Commission stated that; "...the Commission interpreted the standard for constructive exhaustion of domestic remedies to be satisfied where there is no adequate or effective remedy available to the individual. In this particular case, the Commission found that Mr. Wiwa was unable to pursue any domestic remedy following his flight for fear of his life to the Republic of Benin and then subsequent granting of refugee asylum in the United States of America." 77. Indeed what the African Commission is saying herein-above is that there can be particular circumstances which justify the application of the constructive exhaustion of domestic remedies rule to an individual, where it is established that the remedies are neither adequate, effective nor available. In this particular case, in spite of the complainant's two day presence in Zimbabwe, and in view of the allegation of torture, it is abundantly clear that bearing the experience by the said Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto, the remedies available to the complainant are inadequate, ineffective, unavailable and would not be accessed without a lot of impediments, including the possible incarceration of the complainant for the criminal charges which in all fairness would have taken precedence over his personal claim against torture. Had he remained in Zimbabwe, there was no guarantee that he would not have been arrested, nor would he be subjected to the same treatment he had been subjected to the previous time, thus fleeing after the two days brought him within the constructive exhaustion rule. 7