declaration from the Commission to the effect that Zimbabwean law does not provide for adequate remedies, reparations or just satisfaction for a violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the African Charter. 49. The facts also suggest that the Respondent State‟s compensation regime for Victims who lose their lives as a result of actions caused by state officials is inadequate and does not provide effective relief and thus a AC HP R violation of the African Charter. It is the view of the African Commission that the facts as submitted by the Complainant do raise a prima facie case for human rights violations that warrants consideration by the African Commission. 50. Furthermore, the assertion by the Respondent State that the deprivation of the right to life is justifiable under the Constitution of Zimbabwe and that it is an acceptable derogation of human rights under international law is not a matter to be analyzed at the Admissibility stage but rather at the Merits stage of the proceedings. Suffice at this stage of the proceedings to indicate that although the African Charter does not expressly provide for the right to adequate remedy, reparation or compensation; this right is a well-established principle of international law. 51. Therefore, the African Commission does not regard the present Communication as incompatible with the [Constitutive Act of the African Union] or the African Charter, and holds that the Communication meets the requirement of Article 56 (2) of the African Charter. 52. With respect to the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter, in order to meet its initial burden, the Complainant has provided details of cases reported to it of individuals who were killed by 12