matter through its own local judicial system. This prevents the international tribunal from acting as a 6 court of first instance, rather than as a body of last resort. 78. Three major criteria could be deduced from the practice and Jurisprudence of the Commission in determining compliance with this requirement namely: the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. 79. ln , the Commission stated that “a remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment: it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable or redressing the complaint”. In , which both parties have cited, the Commission held that “the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which, it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. … Therefore, if the applicant cannot turn the judiciary of his country because of fear for his life (or even those of his relatives), local remedies would be considered to be unavailable to him”. 80. The Complainant in the present communication on claims that he left his country out of fear for his life due to intimidation, harassment and undue influence in the exercise of his duties. The Complainant has also alleged a history of non-compliance with the orders of the court of the Respondent, and alleges that a human rights NGO in Zimbabwe - the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, has documented 12 cases since the year 2000, where the State has ignored court rulings that go against it. According to the Complainant, it is noteworthy that although local remedies may be available in the Respondent State, there is no assurance of its effectiveness or its implementation due to the fact that if the court rules in favour of the Complainant, there is no guarantee that the ruling will be complied with by the State. 81. The Complainant cited the African Commission’s decisions in the Jawara case and the cases 7 8 of Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana . and Rights International v Nigeria in which he said the Commission found that the Complainants in these cases could not be expected to pursue domestic remedies in their country due to the fact that they had fled their country and were in fact residing outside their country at the time the communications were brought before the Commission. 82. Having studied the Complainant’s submissions, and comparing it with the above cases cited in support of his claim, this Commission is of the opinion that the above cases cited by the Complainant are not similar to his case. In the Jawara case for example, the Complainant was a former Head of State who had been overthrown in a military coup. Mr Jawara alleged that after the coup, there was, “blatant abuse of power by.... the military junta”. The military government was alleged to have initiated a reign of terror, intimidation and arbitrary detention. He further alleged the abolition of the Bill of Rights as contained in the 1970 Gambia Constitution by Military Decree No. 30/31, ousting the competence of the courts to examine or question the validity of any such Decree. The communication alleged the banning of political parties and of Ministers of the former civilian government from taking part in any political activity. The communication further alleged restrictions on freedom of expression, movement and religion. These restrictions were manifested, according to the Complainant, by the arrest and detention of people without charge, kidnappings, torture and the burning of a mosque. 83. In the case, the Commission concluded that “the Complainant in this case had been overthrown by the military, he was tried in absentia former Ministers and Members of Parliament of his government have been detained and there was terror and fear for lives in the country. There is no doubt that there, was a generalised fear perpetrated by the regime as alleged by the Complainant. This created an atmosphere not only in the mind of the author but also in the minds of right thinking people that returning to his country at that material moment, for whatever reason would be risky to his life. Under such circumstances, domestic remedies cannot be said to have been available to the Complainant”. The Commission finally noted that, “it would be an affront to common sense and logic to require the Complainant to return to his country to exhaust local remedies”. 84. In the case, it should be recalled that Mr Alhassan Abubakar was a Ghanaian citizen who was arrested by the Ghanaian authorities in the 1980s for allegedly cooperating with political dissidents. He was detained without charge or trial for over 7 years until his escape from a prison hospital on th 19 February 1992 to Cote d’lvoire. After his escape, his sister and wife who had been visiting him in Cote d’lvoire, were arrested and held for two weeks in an attempt to get information on the Complainant's whereabouts. The Complainant’s brother informed him that the police have been given