PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court uncontested allegation presented as part of his argument that he cannot return to The Gambia because the deportation order was still valid, the Commission found that the complainant should first have exhausted remedies in The Gambia. Declaring the communication inadmissible, the Commission for the first time – and in clear disregard of its jurisprudence, including two findings taken during the very same session – required that a complainant that had fled or was otherwise forced to leave a country to instruct counsel in the country that he had left. This requirement may place an unreasonable and insurmountable financial and logistical burden on victims in similar circumstances. The Commission took a similar position in the case of Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe. The complainant in this case claimed that exhaustion of domestic remedies was unreasonable and impractical in light of the fact that he had fled from Zimbabwe fearing for his life following threats, harassment and arrests by State officials. The State argued that the departure was voluntary and not forced, and further that one need not be physically present in the country to access local remedies. The State cited the case of two Zimbabweans who had fled to the United Kingdom and who, with the assistance of counsel in Zimbabwe, had successfully petitioned the Zimbabwean courts for reparation for the torture they were subjected to. The Commission agreed with the State that ‘in view of the fact that under Zimbabwe law, one need not be physically in the country to access local remedies, the Complainant cannot claim that local remedies are not available to him’.380 The decision does not take into account the possible impediments to accessing local remedies from outside the country, such as the costs of securing legal counsel and difficulties in obtaining evidence, among others. In 2012, the Commission issued its admissibility and merits decision in the case of Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe. The victim in this case was a Zimbabwean human rights lawyer who had been arrested, detained and tortured for three days by State officials before being charged with treasonous acts. He was released on a High Court injunction, and immediately fled the country to South Africa, fearing for his life. He later returned to Zimbabwe for two days. As a result of his involuntary departure from Zimbabwe, the complainant argued that it was impractical and unreasonable to expect him to return to Zimbabwe to exhaust domestic remedies. The complaint also referred to the ineffectiveness of local remedies, citing cases in which court orders, including those of the Supreme Court, have not been enforced and alleging that court orders against the government are regularly ignored by the State.381 380 ACHPR, Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 307/05, 42nd Ordinary Session (28 November 2007), para. 82. 381 Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 288/2004, para. 68. 91