46. Article 56(1) of the African Charter provides that communications will be admitted if they indicate their authors, even if they request anonymity. In the present case the author of this communication is identified as Mr Obert Chinhamo, he has also not requested that his identity be hidden. The Respondent State has also been clearly identified as the Republic of Zimbabwe. Therefore the provision of Article 56(1) has been adequately complied with. 47. Article 56(2) of the African Charter provides that a communication must be compatible with the Charter of the OAU or with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. In the present communication, the Respondent State argues that the communication does not comply with this requirement, that is, the communication is not compatible with the provisions of the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the African Charter itself. The State asserts in this regard that, for a complaint to be compatible with the Charter or the Constitutive Act, it must prove a prima facie violation of the Charter. 48. Compatibility according to the Black's Law Dictionary denotes 'in compliance with' and 'in conformity with' or [/quote]'not contrary to'[/quote] or 'against'. In this communication, the Complainant alleges among others, violations of his right to personal integrity and being subjected to intimidation, harassment and psychological torture, arbitrary detention, violation of freedom of movement and loss of resources occasioned by the actions of the Respondent State. These allegations do raise a prima facie violation of human rights, in particular, the right to the security of the person or personal integrity and freedom from torture guaranteed in the Charter. Complainants submitting communications to the Commission need not specify which articles of the Charter have been violated, or even which right is being invoked, so long as they have raised the substance of the issue in question. Based on the above, the African Commission is satisfied that in the present communication, the requirement of Article 56(2) of the African Charter has been sufficiently complied with. 49. Article 56(3) of the Charter provides that a communication will be admitted if they are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organisation of African Unity (African Union). In the present case, the communication sent by the Complainant does not, in the view of this Commission, contain any disparaging or insulting language, and as a result of this, the requirement of ,Article 56(3) has been fulfilled. 50. Article 56(4) of the Charter provides that the communication must not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. This communication was submitted by the Complainant himself and is his account of his personal experience with the law enforcement agents of the Respondent State. For this reason he has fulfilled the provision of Article 56(4). 51. Article 56(5) provides that communications to be considered by the African Commission must be sent after local remedies have been exhausted. The Respondent State contends that the Complainant has not complied with this requirement. The State argues that there are sufficient and effective local remedies available to the Complainant in the State, and the Complainant has not sought these remedies before bringing the present communication before the Commission. On the other hand, the Complainant argues that since he had to flee the country due to fear for his life, he could not come back to the country to pursue these local remedies. 52. The rationale for the exhaustion of local remedies is to ensure that before proceedings are brought before an international body, the State concerned must have the opportunity to remedy the matter through its own local system. This prevents the international tribunal from acting as a court of first instance rather than as a body of last resort.5 53. Three major criteria could be deduced from the practice of the Commission in determining compliance with this requirement, that is: the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. 54. In Jawara v The Gambia,6 , 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 of redressing the complaint". In the Jawara Communication, 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 to 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". 55. The Complainant in the present Communication claims that he left his country out of fear for his life due to intimidation, harassment and torture. He said due to the nature of his work, the agents of the Respondent State started tracking him with a view to harming and/or killing him. He has also described how he was treated while in detention, noting that he was denied food, he was not attended to when he complained of headache, he was refused visit to the toilet, that the conditions in the holding cells were bad 6