The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES be arrested and incarcerated on unspecified charges as punishment for defying the Respondent’s orders. All the above allegations are not substantiated take the latter for example, what if the “sympathetic member of the legal fraternity” was a hoax? What if he was acting on his own or wanted to benefit from the misfortune of the Complainant? His or her name is not even known. It is not possible for the Commission to determine the level of intimidation or harassment that is needed to instil fear in a person to force that person to flee for their life. However, in the instant case, there is no concrete evidence to link the Complainant’s fear to the Respondent State.411 Like the complaint in the Shumba case, the Michael Majuru and Obert Chinhamo complaints also referenced the ineffectiveness of the remedies available in Zimbabwe, similarly referring to a dozen cases in which court orders against the State, including those of the Supreme Court, have not been enforced. However, in these cases, the Commission was not convinced by the arguments relating to the ineffectiveness of the remedies available and referred to the requirement for complainants to provide ‘some prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies’. In both cases, the Commission also referred to the European Court of Human Rights’ position that even if applicants have reason to believe that available domestic remedies may be ineffective, they should seek those remedies. In a departure from its decision and reasoning in the Shumba case, in both the Michael Majuru and the Obert Chinhamo cases, the Commission found that the complainants had simply ‘cast aspersion’ on the effectiveness of the domestic remedies based on ‘isolated incidents’. Both cases were declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. Where no exception to the exhaustion rule applies, possible recourse may nevertheless be available. The Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention may be able to intervene in certain situations. For more thorough discussion, refer to Part D, Section XVIII, Subsection 1 of this volume. Presentation of Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Arguments In practice, the authors of communications should indicate not only the available remedies but also the efforts made to exhaust such remedies. Communications should similarly state any difficulties – legal as well as practical – encountered in trying to utilise available remedies and should describe the outcome of efforts made. In Stephen O. Aigbe v. Nigeria, the Commission declared a communication inadmissible because the complainant had alleged that he sought redress before “several authorities”. The Commission has no indication in the file before it that there was any proceeding before the domestic courts on the matter.412 411 ACHPR, Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 308/05, paras. 90 – 94. 412 ACHPR, Stephen O. Aigbe v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 252/2002, 33rd Ordinary Session (29 May 2003), para. 15. 98