circumstance of the Complainant's case, the remedies are effective and sufficient. 63. To support his case, the Complainant cited the African Commission's decisions in the Jawara Case and the cases of Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana7 and Rights International v Nigeria8 in which he said the Commission found that the Complainants in these cases could not be expected to pursue domestic remedies in their country due to the fact that they had fled their country for fear of their lives. 64. Having studied the Complainant's submissions, and comparing it with the above cases cited in support of his claim, the Commission is of the opinion that the facts of the above cases are not similar to his case. In the Jawara Case for example, the Complainant was a former Head of State who had been overthrown in a military coup. The Complainant in this case alleged that after the coup, there was "blatant abuse of power by ... the military junta". The military government was alleged to have initiated a reign of terror, intimidation and arbitrary detention. The Complainant further alleged the abolition of the Bill of Rights as contained in the 1970 Gambia Constitution by Military Decree No. 30/31, ousting the competence of the courts to examine or question the validity of any such Decree. The communication alleged the banning of political parties and of ministers of the former civilian government from taking part in any political activity. The communication further alleged restrictions on freedom of expression, movement and religion. These restrictions were manifested, according to the Complainant, by the arrest and detention of people without charge, kidnappings, torture and the burning of a mosque. 65. In the Jawara case, the Commission concluded that "the Complainant in this case had been overthrown by the military, he was tried in absentia, former ministers and Members of Parliament of his government have been detained and there was terror and fear for lives in the country. There is no doubt that there was a generalised fear perpetrated by the regime as alleged by the Complainant. This created an atmosphere not only in the mind of the author but also in the minds of right thinking people that returning to his country at that material moment, for whatever reason, would be risky to his life. Under such circumstances, domestic remedies cannot be said to have been available to the Complainant". The Commission finally noted that, "it would be an affront to common sense and logic to require the complainant to return to his country to exhaust local remedies". 66. In the Alhassan Abubakar Case, it should be recalled that Mr Alhassan Abubakar was a Ghanaian citizen who was arrested by the Ghanaian authorities in the 1980s for allegedly cooperating with political dissidents. He was detained without charge or trial for over seven (7) years until his escape from a prison hospital on 19th February 1992 to Cote d'Ivoire. After his escape, his sister and wife, who had been visiting him in Cote d'Ivoire, were arrested and held for two weeks in an attempt to get information on the Complainant's whereabouts. The Complainant's brother informed him that the police have been given false information about his return, and have on several occasions surrounded his house, searched it, and subsequently searched for him in his mother's village. 67. In the early part of 1993 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Côte d'Ivoire informed the Complainant that they had received a report on him from Ghana assuring that he was free to return without risk of being prosecuted for fleeing from prison. The report further stated that all those detained for political reasons had been released. [The] Complainant on the other hand maintained that there is a law in Ghana which subjects escapees to penalties from 6 months to 2 years imprisonment, regardless of whether the detention from which they escaped was lawful or not. On the basis of the above, the Commission held that "considering the nature of the complaint it would not be logical to ask the Complainant to go back to Ghana in order to seek a remedy from national legal authorities. Accordingly, the Commission does not consider that local remedies are available for the Complainant". 68. In Rights International v. Nigeria, the victim, a certain Mr Charles Baridorn Wiwa, a Nigerian student in Chicago was arrested and tortured at a Nigerian Military Detention Camp in Gokana. It was alleged that Mr Wiwa was arrested on 3rd January 1996 by unknown armed soldiers in the presence of his mother and other members of his family, and remained in the said military detention camp from 3-9 January 1996. While in detention, Mr Wiwa was horsewhipped and placed in a cell with forty-five other detainees. When he was identified as a relative of Mr Ken Saro-Wiwa he was subjected to various forms of torture. Enclosed in the communication was medical evidence of Mr Wiwa's physical torture. After 5 days in the detention camp in Gokana, Mr Wiwa was transferred to the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) in Port Harcourt. Mr Wiwa was held from 9-11 January 1996, without access to legal counsel or relatives, except for a five minutes discussion with his grandfather. On 11th January 1996, Mr Wiwa and 21 other Ogonis were brought before the Magistrate Court 2 in Port-Harcourt, charged with unlawful assembly in violation of Section 70 of the Criminal Code Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963. Mr Wiwa was granted bail, but while out on bail some unknown people believed to be government agents abducted him and threatened his life by forcing him into 8