Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe are formally available but courts are not independent or impartial, the remedies are deemed ineffective. The Complainant corroborates this argument by making reference to the 2002 fact-finding mission of the African Commission to Zimbabwe wherein the Commission observed that: the judiciary had been tainted and even under the new dispensation bears the distrust that comes from the prevailing political conditions ... .It appears that their conditions of service do not protect them from political pressure; appointments to the bench could be done in such a way that they could be insulated from the stigma of political patronage.zs 84. The African Commission through its jurisprudence made it clear that the whole purpose of asking Complainants to exhaust local remedies before approaching the Commission is to give the Respondent State a chance to redress the alleged human rights violations through its structures and organs. This is derived from the principle of complementarity which dictates that international or regional mechanisms do not and cannot substitute national courts; it is only when national courts or tribunals fail to deliver justice that international or regional organs will have jurisdiction to receive cases. This is why the African Commission has been stringently applying the exhaustion of local remedies rule and only in few justified circumstances has it waived such condition. 85. The question here is does the allegation that Zimbabwean courts are not independent or impartial and are subject to political pressure warrants the conclusion that victory before such courts is unlikely, and thus makes the remedies ineffective? 86. First it is important to note that the only evidence that the Complainant has furnished in support of this statement is an excerpt from the 2002 fact-finding mission report of the 2s n 12 above. 21 11 th Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR I Page