st its 41 Session. The parties were asked to send their submissions on admissibility within 3 months of receiving the letters. th 33. The Complainant sent an email on 18 December 2006, confirming that Zimbabwe Exiles Forum to which Gabriel Shumba is the Executive Director are his agents in the matter and that the Secretariat should acknowledge submissions made by them. th 34. By Note Verbale dated 4 January 2007, the Secretariat reminded the Respondent State of the th Commission’s decision during its 40 Ordinary Session, and asked them to make their submissions on admissibility within 3 months of receipt of the notification. Another reminder by way of a Note Verbale th dated 10 April 2007 was also sent to the Respondent State. th 35. On 24 April 2007, the Secretariat received the Respondent State’s submission on admissibility. The Respondent State’s submission was forwarded to the Complainant by email and he was asked to make additional submissions (if any), in order to address some important points which were raised by the Respondent State in its submission. st 36. During its 41 Ordinary Session, the African Commission decided to defer consideration of the nd communication to its 42 Ordinary Session for its decision on admissibility. th 37. By letter ACHPR/LPROT/ COMM/308/2005/ZIM/TN dated 20 July 2007 and by Note Verbale ACHPR/LPROT/COMM/308/2005/ZIM/RE, with the same date, the parties were informed of the th decision of the African Commission to defer consideration of the communication to its 42 Ordinary Session. nd 38. At its 42 Ordinary session held in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, the Commission considered rd this communication and decided to defer further consideration into the 43 Ordinary Session due to lack of time. th 39. By Note Verbale of 19 December 2007 and letter of the same date, the Secretariat of the Commission notified both panics of the Commission’s decision. Law Admissibility Complainant’s submission on admissibility 40. The Complainant submitted that he has local standing before the African Commission as the communication is brought by himself, a citizen of Zimbabwe, the Respondent State in this matter. Regarding compatibility, the Complainant submitted that the communication raises a prima facie violation of the African Charter committed by the Respondent State. He submitted further that the evidence he has submitted reveals that the communication is not based exclusively on news disseminated by the mass media, adding that it is based on first hand evidence - including reports by reputable human rights organisations. 41. On the exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainant submitted that the onus is on the State to 1 2 demonstrate that remedies are available, citing the Commission’s decisions in the cases of and , . The Complainant added that he remedy in his particular circumstance is not available because he cannot make use of it that he was forced to flee Zimbabwe for fear of his life and that of his immediate family. Because of his work as a judge of the Administrative Court. That he fled to the Republic of South Africa following threats of arrest and unspecified harm by the Respondent State. 3 42. The Complainant drew the Commission’s attention to its decision on , where the Commission held that a Complainant’s inability to pursue local remedies following his flight for fear of his life to Benin, and was subsequently granted asylum was sufficient to establish a standard for constructive exhaustion of local remedies. He concluded by noting that considering the fact that he was no longer in the Respondent State’s ternary where remedies could be sought. And that he fled the country against his will due to threat to his life; remedies could not be pursued without impediments. 43. The Complainant also challenged the effectiveness of the remedies noting that remedies are effective only where they offer a prospect of success. He claimed the Respondent State’s reaction to court rulings that go against it is well documented by reputable international and African NGOs, noting