Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe African Commission to Zimbabwe, which investigated into the then general human rights situation in the country. 87. Although the report shades some light on the independence of the judiciary at the time, it should be stressed that even the report highlights the fact that the political pressure on the judiciary were recent occurrences of the time, which had a lot to do with the then political turmoil in the country fueled by the land policy. 26 These observations were made in 2002 and by the time this Communication was filed in 2007, the Complainant has not managed to prove if the situation still remains the same. Thus, it begs the question if the observation is still relevant in the present case. 88. In addition, in its submissions the Complainant itself has referred to two cases wherein Zimbabwean courts ruled in favor of torture victims though the decisions were never implemented. The issue of lack of implementation being another issue, which will be addressed later in this decision, but the fact that Zimbabwean courts, at least in two cases, did find violations of torture is a proof that domestic remedies could still be effective. 89. In Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia27 where the Complainant was apprehensive about the success of local remedies because of, among others, the lack of independence of the judiciary, the African Commission reasoned that "if a remedy has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without trying to avail oneself of them, will not simply sway the Commission". 26 27 n 12 above Communication 299/05 -Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) para. 58. 22 llth Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR I Page