40. In interpreting Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Commission has consistently noted that the use of the phrase “if any” in that provision means that only domestic remedies that are available, effective and sufficient need be exhausted by a Complainant.10 The Commission has also previously held that a domestic remedy is considered to be available when a petition can be pursued without impediment; is deemed effective if it offers prospects of success and is sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.11 41. The Commission recalls that the law on exhaustion of local remedies presupposes i) the existence of domestic procedures for dealing with the claim; ii) the justiciability or otherwise, domestically of the subject-matter of the complaint; iii) the existence under the municipal legal order of provisions for redress of the type of wrong being complained of; and iv) availability of effective local remedies, that is, remedies sufficient or capable of redressing the matter.12 The Complainant here contends that the subject-matter of the Communication does not lend itself to domestic justiciability because it involves a constitutional challenge which has no prospect of success in the Zimbabwean legal system. 42. In support of its argument, the Complainant has submitted that the issue in dispute amounts to a constitutional challenge because the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not provide for absentee voting in the case of Zimbabweans living abroad other than those in government service. The Commission also recalls the Complainant’s submission that a similar question was raised and addressed by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe in the Madzango Case. In that case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the rights sought to be enforced by the Victims had no constitutional or statutory foundation in Zimbabwe. In effect, the Supreme Court ruled that the right does not exist in the legal framework of the Respondent State and that there is no prospect of success for any litigant bringing a similar or related claim. The implication is that registered voters, including the Victims who are abroad, will continue to find themselves in situations where they cannot cast their votes from a foreign country, unless they are able to travel back to their home country. 43. Recalling its jurisprudence that a Complainant will only be required to exhaust domestic remedies that are available, effective and sufficient, the Commission agrees with the Complainant that the requirement does not apply to the present Communication. The Commission finds that this is a case where exceptions to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies should apply. The Commission Communication 147/95-149/96 – Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (2000) ACHPR; Communication 275/03 – Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) ACHPR 11 Jawara v The Gambia (n 11 above) 12 Article 19 v Eritrea, para 47 10 8