instruments signed and ratified by the government of Zimbabwe which provide for appeal to competent bodies and equal protection of the law. 60. According to the Complainants, without approaching the Court, or as in this case, the Court deciding to “shut the door in the face of the applicants”, there is no other mechanisms of establishing the nature and extent of repugnancy of an Act of Parliament to the Constitution. In constitutional supremacy jurisdictions, they argue, matters relating to the constitutional conformity of any law deemed to be contrary to the Constitution there is no need to have that said by the Court since from the onset there is no law to argue about as provided by Section 3 of the Constitution. 61. As a result of the reliance on the unclean hands doctrine, the Complainants believe that the Court refused to hear the arguments of the ANZ on the merits of the case thereby refusing the petitioner of equal protection before the law and appeal to competent bodies. They refer to Section 24 of the Constitution which provides for the ‘Enforcement of Protective Provisions’ and states that “if any person alleges that the declaration of rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him…then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may subject to the provisions of subsection (3) apply to the Supreme Court for redress”. 62. The above section they claim gives the Court original jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Bill of Rights, adding that the ANZ approached the Court to enforce the very same tenets establishing the Court, i.e. to protect fundamental rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but the Court abrogated its duty to decide on the constitutional soundness or validity of the petition. 63. The Complainants submit that the absence of an effective remedy to violations of rights recognised in the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which the remedy is lacking. In that sense it should be emphasised that, for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognised, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress. 64. According to the Complainants, a remedy which proves illusory because of the conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances in a given case, cannot be considered effective, in the opinion of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights1. 65. The Complainants further argue that the determination of one’s rights by a competent and impartial tribunal is a procedural guarantee provided for in the Charter, adding that to determine whether one’s rights have been violated, the national body has to make an evaluation of the facts of the case on the merits. According to them, the Supreme Court avoided dealing with the petitioner’s rights and the soundness of the claim, thereby depriving the petitioners of an effective remedy. 66. The Complainants finally submit that with the decision of the Supreme Court to decline to entertain the applicants, particularly given that the decision was taken by the Respondent’s most senior Court in the land and that the decision had the unanimous approval of all the justices of the Court, local remedies have been exhausted. Respondent State’s submission on admissibility 67. The Respondent State submitted its argument on admissibility on 2 November 2004. The State notes that the Complainants’ application is based on section 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which allows anyone who feels that the Declaration of Rights contained in the Constitution is being violated in relation to him/her should apply to the Supreme Court for relief. The State notes further that in the Complainants’ application, they sought the nullification of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) on the grounds that the latter is ultra vires section 20 of the Republican Constitution. 168. The Respondent State submits further that at the time the application was filed with the Supreme Court, the First Complainant, the Associated Newspaper of Zimbabwe (ANZ) had not complied with section 66 of the AIPPA which makes it an offence to provide mass media services without registration. That the ANZ did not want to register in terms of the provisions of the AIPPA because it viewed the legislation as unconstitutional, and argued “it [could not] on conscience obey such a law”.