the Complainant alleges he suffered, that made him flee the country for his life.12 66. Furthermore, the Respondent State has argued that according to Section 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (whose content has been verified by the African Commission), the High Court and Supreme Court Act, the Complainant need not be physically present in the country to access local remedies. At this juncture, it is worth noting that in the Mark Chavhunduka and Ray Choto Case, cited by the Complainant in its submissions, the applicants applied to the Supreme Court for a determination under Section 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe,13 meaning that they were not physically present during the time of the application. 67. The Mark Chavhunduka and Ray Choto Case, according to this Commission, just corroborates the argument raised by the Respondent State that the Complainant (whether he/she is the Victim or not), can be represented, without being physically present, in accordance with the national laws of Zimbabwe. 68. Moreover, in J.E Zitha and P.J.L. Zitha (represented by Prof. Dr. Liesbeth Zegveld) v Mozambique, the African Commission adopted the same principle stating that, it has entertained many Communications from authors on behalf of Victims. The African Commission also noted in that same Communication that, “Having decided to act on behalf of the victims, it is incumbent on the author of a Communication to take concrete steps to comply 12 n above. 13 See Zimbabwe: Chavunduka and Choto v. Zimbabwe · Article 19 available at www.article19.org/.../zimbabwe-chavunduka-and-choto-v.-zimbabwe. 18