himself. It is true that the High Courts and UHRC could have been approached as available means to address the situation, however, as pointed out above, a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, failing which it will lack the requisite of accessibility. Even if the Commission was to consider these remedies as available to the Victim, questions would arise on whether they could offer prospects of success or whether they could properly remedy the situation? The answer to these questions would be negative as the Commission has set out in Purohit and Moore v The Gambia 27 that a remedy which exists in theory but is only available to those who can afford to access it will not be considered effective. The Commission is therefore of the view that under such particular circumstances, local remedi~s/ although a vailable in theory, cannot be said to be available to the Victim in practice, under this sui generis situation. 116. Furthermore, the Commission in assessing both Parties' 'submissions on the issue of the Victim's fear for his safety a~d security, _would like to reiterate its decisions in Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, Alhassen Abubakar v Ghana and Rights lnternationa.l v. Nigeria 28 where it held that Complainants who escape for fear of their lives could not be expected to return to the Respondent State t9 ~xhaust local remedies. The Commission would also like to cite its decision in Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe, where the Complainant fled Zimbabwe for fear , of his life after having been tortured by the Zimbabwe Republic Poljce, it established that no attempts need to be made to exhaust local remedies 29 .The Commission is therefore of the view that under the present circumstance of this Communication, due to fear for his life and safety, the Victim cannot be required to return to the R~spondent State where he has allegedly suffered a series of violations of his rights and from which he has fled, in order to exhaust local remedies. 117. The Comm,ission for these reasons, is satisfied that the Complainants have provided sufficient evidence showing the moral and material constraints preventing -the · Victim from exhausting local remedies, as the Complainants have sufficiently proved the Victim's health, financial constraints and fear for his life and security that prevent him from exhausting local remedies. Abubakar v Ghana and Communication 215/98- Rights International V Nigeria, 29 Gabriel Schumba v Zimbabwe, paras 89,90.