Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and furthermore the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995. 112. The Commission has pointed out in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Jean Simbarkiye) v DRC and previous decisions that, there is a need for a Complainant to provide evidence showing the moral and material constraints alleged to have prevented him from exhausting local remedies. 26 113. The Complainants, in setting out the constraints preventing the Victim from travelling to Uganda to attempt to exhaust local remedies indicated that, the Victim could not return to Uganda to file a Complaint due to the serious state of his health and the risk of re-,traumatization. Furthermore, the Complainants argue that due to the Victim's poor health conditions, he is now unable to perform work, gain employment and financially support himself. This allegation is confirmed by ~ M~dical Report attached to the Complaint (Annex 4 - Preliminary Medical. Report) which is clear in asserting that the Victim now suff€'rs from seri◊l1-s life-long physical and psychological health problems such as anal bleeding; complete loss of olfactory sensation; partial deafness, loss of vision and paralysis of his torso; loss of bowel control and sensation in his back, amongst others. 114. The Complainants also indicate that contrary to the Respondent States' assertion that th~ Victim's safety and security is guaranteed once he enters into Ugandan territory to instiµite his suit, the Victim cannot return to Uganda due to well-founded fears for his safety which existed at the time the initial Communication was filed in May 2009, and which continues to exist today. The length of the arbitrary detention and the severity of his torture over a long period of time naturally instilled a high level of fear in the Victim and · left him physically impaired and traumatized. The Complainants argue that the remedies referred to by the Respondent State are therefore not available to the Victim because to effectively access the remedies would require the presence of the Victim in Uganda. For these reasons, the Complainants assert that the Victim cannot return to Uganda to institute his claim and therefore the remedies are not available. 115.Accordingly, as illustrated above, the Commission is convinced that the medical report thus confirms the Victim's poor health conditions, inability to travel to Uganda and also to perform work and financially support 26 Communication 47 /02- Institute for Jean Simbarkiye) v DRC, para, 33. - 1 N~• Human Rights and Development in Africa (o~ ~- //i· t/.J 1, ~ lq • -.i - n 0 ~ ~ ~l.kll)f1 4 ''?, ,i