Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe 26. The Complainant further submits that in Jawara v The Gambia 6 the African Commission found that: Three major criteria can be deduced from the practice of the Commission in determining (the local remedies) rule, namely: the remedy must be available, effective, and sufficient.. .. 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 to be sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. 27. The Complainant submits that the African Commission further held that "a remedy is considered available only if the applicant can make use of it in the circumstances of the case" and stated 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." 7 The Complainant argues that the existence of a remedy in the present case is neither certain in theory nor in practice and the Victim is patently unable to make use of local remedies in the circumstances of his case. 28. The Complainant contends that local remedies are considered unavailable when, inter alia, the Complainant cannot return to his country to pursue the remedies because of fear for his life. The Complainant cites the case of Rights International v Nigeria 8 wherein: Relying on its precedents... the Commission interpreted the standard for constructive exhaustion of domestic remedies to be satisfied where there is no adequate or effective remedy available to the individual. In this particular case, the Commission found that Mr. Wiwa was unable to pursue any domestic remedy following his flight for fear of his life to the Republic of Benin and the subsequent granting of refugee status to 'him by the United States of America'. 29. Continuing in this vein, the Complainant submits, in Ouko v Kenya 9, the Commission stated: Communication 147/95 and 149/96 - Sir Dawda K. fawara v The Gambia (The fawara Case) (2000) ACHPR para. 31 & 32. Id, para 33 & 35. Communication 215/98 - Rights International v Nigeria (2000) ACHPR para. 24. 9 Communication 232/99 - John D. Ouko v Kenya (2000) ACHPR para. 19. 71Page 11 th Extraordinary Session of the ACHPR