a car in Port-Harcourt. On the advice of human rights lawyers, Mr Wiwa fled Nigeria on 18 March 1996 to Cotonou, Republic of Benin where the UN High Commissioner for Refugees declared him a refugee. On September 17th 1996, the US government granted him refugee status and he has been residing in the United States since then. 69. In this case, the African Commission declared the communication admissible on grounds that there was lack of available and effective domestic remedies for human rights violations in Nigeria under the military regime. It went further to assert that [quote]"the standard for constructive exhaustion of domestic remedies is satisfied where there is no adequate or effective remedy available to the individual. In this particular case, Mr Wiwa was unable to pursue any domestic remedy following his flight for fear of his life to the Republic of Benin and the subsequent granting of refugee status to him by the United States of America"[quote]. 70. The communication under consideration must also be distinguished from Gabriel Shumba v Republic of Zimbabwe 9 * In the Shumba Case, the Complainant, Mr Gabriel Shumba, alleged that, he, in the presence of 3 others, namely Bishop Shumba, Taurai Magayi and Charles Mutama was taking instructions from one of his clients, a Mr John Sikhala in a matter involving alleged political harassment by 20 members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP). Mr John Sikhala is a Member of Parliament for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which is the opposition party in Zimbabwe. At about 11:00 pm riot police accompanied by plain-clothes policemen and personnel identified to be from the Central Intelligence Organisation stormed the room and arrested everyone present. During the arrest, the Complainant's law practicing certificate, diary, files, documents and cell phone were confiscated and he was slapped and kicked several times by, among others, the Officer in Charge of Saint Mary's Police Station. 71. Mr Shumba and the others were taken to Saint Mary's Police Station where he was detained without charge and denied access to legal representation. He was also denied food and water. The Complainant claims that on the next day following his arrest, he was removed from the cell, a hood was placed over his head and he was driven to an unknown location where he was led down what seemed like a tunnel, to a room underground. The hood was removed, he was stripped naked and his hands and feet were bound in a foetal position and a plank was thrust between his legs and arms. While in this position, the Complainant was questioned and threatened with death by about 15 interrogators. The Complainant further alleged that he was also electrocuted intermittently for 8 hours and a chemical substance was applied to his body. He lost control of his bodily functions, vomited blood and he was forced to drink his vomit. The Complainant submitted a certified copy of a medical report describing the injuries found on his body. Following his interrogation at around 7pm of the same day, the Complainant was unbound and forced to write several statements implicating him and several senior MDC members in subversive activities. At around 7.30pm he was taken to Harare Police Station and booked into a cell. On the third day of his arrest, his lawyers who had obtained a High Court injunction ordering his release to court were allowed to access him. The Complainant was subsequently charged under Section 5 of the Public Order and Security Act that relates to organising, planning or conspiring to overthrow the government through unconstitutional means. He then fled Zimbabwe for fear of his life. 72. In the four cases cited above, there is one thing in common - the clear establishment of the element of fear perpetrated by identified state institutions, fear which in the Jawara Case, the Commission observed that "it would be reversing the clock of justice to request the Complainant to attempt local remedies". In the Abubakhar Case, the Complainant's sister and wife were arrested to force the Complainant to return, his house was regularly surrounded and searched, and his mother's village was visited by state agents looking for him. In the Shumba Case, the State never refuted the allegations of torture or the authenticity of the medical reports, but simply argued that Complainant could have seized the local courts for redress. 73. In the case under consideration, the Complainant, Mr Obert Chinhamo has presented a picture of the conditions of detention, which without prejudice to the merits of the communication, can be termed inhuman and degrading. He also pointed out instances of alleged intimidation and harassment by State agents. 74. Every reasonable person would be concerned and afraid for their life if they had State Security agents prying into their everyday activities. [The] Complainant had every reason to be concerned for his safety and that of his family. However, it should be noted that Complainant did not identify any of the men tracking him to be State agents. According to his submissions, the people harassing him were anonymous, unknown or suspected CIO officials, and in some cases, he simply observed some strange men around his home and his place of work. In none of the instances of alleged harassment or intimidation mentioned by the Complainant did he identify his alleged persecutors as agents of the Respondent State. He based his fear on suspicion, which was not corroborated. 9