or at least attempt to exhaust local remedies. It is not enough for the complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated incidences”. 75. Furthermore, the premise under Article 56(5) is to give the Respondent State the opportunity to redress by its own means, within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual,19 before taking the matter to any international body. Thus, if the Government argues that a Communication should be declared inadmissible because local remedies have not been exhausted, it has the burden to demonstrate that such remedies exist.20 76. In the instant Communication, the Respondent State contends that it has discharged its onus to show that local remedies are available and effective, making the burden shift on the Complainant to proof otherwise. In exercising this burden, the Complainant cites the Cases of Commercial Farmers Union v The Minister of Lands and Agriculture, land Resettlement and others,21 and Mark Chavhunduka and Ray Choto v Zimbabwe as examples to support his argument that the courts in the Respondent State are ineffective because they do not comply or implement their decisions. The Complainant adds that Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights has documented at least 12 cases since 2000 in which the State has ignored court rulings. Hence, due to the above reasons, it is the Complainant‟s submission that the Victim has no prospect of success in pursuing local remedies in the Respondent State. 19 Communication 71/92 RHADDO v. Zambia (1996) ACHPR para 10. 20 n above para 12. 21 Supreme Court Ruling,( 132-2000). 21