48. The Complainant further argues that he is still living in a state of fear as the threat to his life did not stop when he left Zimbabwe. As such, the Complainant contends, considering the nature of the complaint, it would not be logical for the African Commission to ask him to return to Zimbabwe and seek remedy from the national courts. The Complainant notes that reports in the newspaper - the Government Chronicle, have inaccurately ascribed treasonous activities to him, an indication that, his life would still be in danger were he to return to Zimbabwe. The Complainant states that his wife and child have since fled the country and are now on temporary permits in South Africa. 49. The Complainant goes on to submit that considering the fact that he fled the country against his will and as such he is no longer in Zimbabwe where the remedies ought to be sought, then it would not be possible to pursue domestic remedies without impediments and consequently, they should be considered unavailable. In coming to this conclusion, the Complainant relies on communications decided by the African Commission along similar lines including, communications 232/99, 215/98 and 103/93. In those cases the African Commission granted admissibility based on the principle of constructive exhaustion of local remedies. 50. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that in order for him to exhaust local remedies they should be effective, which means that the remedy should be able to offer a prospect of success. He notes however, that the remedies available in Zimbabwe are ineffective. This is because, the trend prevailing in Zimbabwe is that government does not comply with court orders; and as such, it is doubtful whether the existence of local remedies will be sufficient not only in theory but also in practice. The Complainant submits further that, because his case also relates to his activities as a member of the opposition, the prospect of success in this respect is likely to not only be onerous and but also untenable. He therefore concludes that given the nature of his case and the government's trend of non-compliance with court decisions, he has no prospect of success in pursuing local remedies in Zimbabwe. 51. In addition, the Complainant states that he is a student in South Africa, earning a stipend only and therefore not in a position to employ a lawyer to pursue his case in Zimbabwe. He also notes that although he lodged a complaint in February 2003 with the police in respect of the torture that he had suffered, to date, no one has been arrested even though the police were provided with the names of the alleged perpetrators of the torture. 52. In response to the Complainant's submissions, the Respondent State contends that the Complainant???s absence from Zimbabwe is deliberate, and not as a result of any threats to his life. The Respondent State contends that the Complainant's claims that his life is threatened, and his inability to return to Zimbabwe and utilise the available domestic remedies are unfounded. The Respondent State notes that the Complainant first left Zimbabwe for South Africa sometime between the 17th January and 4th February 2003, and returned. On 5th February 2003, he appeared in court, subsequently left Zimbabwe and did not return. On both these occasions, the Complainant left his wife and child in Zimbabwe. Consequently, the Respondent State argues, that the said actions by the Complainant do not seem to indicate that the Complainant's life is under threat. The Respondent State submits instead that the actual reason as to why the Complainant left Zimbabwe was to prevent the State from pursuing a criminal case against him. 53. The Respondent State further argues that not in all cases should residence outside of the jurisdiction be taken to suggest that the Complainant is not required to exhaust local remedies and refers the African Commission to its decision in Communication 219/98 where it stated that a victim did not have to be physically present in a country to avail himself of available domestic remedies as such, could be done through his counsel. 54. Rather than approach the African Commission first, the Respondent State argues that the Complainant could have utilised the very NGOs that are assisting him publicise his case to petition the courts. The Respondent State drew the attention of the African Commission to the possibility of utilising this avenue by quoting the case of Ray Choto and Meldrum who are presently outside Zimbabwe but have been able to access remedies through the courts in Zimbabwe. Making reference to the letter of 28 February 2003 addressed to the police by the Complainant's advocates Selemani, stating he would sue the State for torturing the Complainant, the Respondent State argues that by this very act, the Complainant's advocate, demonstrates that he was fully aware that domestic remedies could be pursued in the absence of the Complainant. 55. As regards the claim by the Complainant that the domestic remedies in Zimbabwe are ineffective, the Respondent State denies that it is in the habit of disobeying court orders but has instead appealed against those orders that it did not agree with. The Respondent State argues that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is 4