Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe ii. The Zimbabwean court system lacks independence, and pressure from the executive branch would make any victory in court unlikely for the Victim; and iii. The Zimbabwe authorities have been unwilling to enforce court orders in cases seen to implicate political issues, and have generally treated human rights violators with impunity. 76. In support of its first argument, the Complainant argues by citing the ]awara Case that a remedy must be available, effective and sufficient, and for a remedy to be considered available the applicant should be able to make use of it in the circumstances of his case. Based on this, the Complainant concludes that the existence of a remedy in the case at hand is certain neither in theory nor in practice and the Victim is patently unable to make use of local remedies in the circumstances of his case, as he has fled the country for fear of his life. 77. The Complainant also makes reference to cases in which the African Commission used fear of persecution on the side of the Victim as a ground to waive the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. 78. In response to the above argument of the Complainant, the Respondent State contends that Section 24(1) of the Constitution read together with Chapter 7:06 of the High Court Act and Chapter 7:05 of the Supreme Court Act allow a person to be represented by a legal practitioner to file his/her case and hence the Victim does not need to be physically present to exhaust local remedies. 79. In analyzing the response of the Respondent State it could easily be deduced that the latter does not dispute the fact that the Victim was not able to exhaust local remedies because he had fled the country for fear of his life. Rather the point the Respondent State is making is that the Victim could and should have been represented by a lawyer as he is entitled to do so in the Constitution and other legislations of the country with a view to exhaust local remedies. 19 11 th Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR IPage