The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES The Commission examined previous decisions on whether complainants should be required to exhaust domestic remedies and their applicability to this case in great detail.382 Without providing much reasoning, it found the case admissible on the grounds that the Complainant could not pursue domestic remedies without impediment due to the fears for his life, rendering domestic remedies unavailable.383 It also found domestic remedies ineffective.384 However, as discussed below in the burden of proof sub-section, not all cases have been found admissible on similar grounds. In short, the requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies in cases where victims have been forced to flee the country does not appear to be a settled doctrine of the Commission, but rather assessed on a case-by-case basis. However it would appear that if the author of a communication in which this was the case furnishes sound reasoning and evidence indicating that returning to the State where the violation occurred would put him or her in danger or if doing so would be de fact unfeasible, the Commission may waive the requirement for the exhaustion of domestic retmedies. The SADC Tribunal has taken a somewhat different approach to this question. In United Republic of Tanzania v. Cimexpan (Mauritius) Ltd. and 2 Others, a preliminary objection was raised by Tanzania against the complaint filed by Cimexpan (Mauritius) Ltd regarding the deportation of the company’s director. The objection was raised on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and Tanzania’s objection to the request by Cimexpan to have the deportation order of its director rescinded. In response to the preliminary objection, the Tribunal held that deportation does not mean that the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies is waived, and that the victims in this case could have contested their deportation from outside the country.385 Sufficiency and Effectiveness of Domestic Remedies These principles, in the jurisprudence of the Commission, extend to those cases where it is ‘impractical or undesirable’ for a victim or applicant to approach domestic courts.386 This is applicable in many cases to victims of torture. Instances in which the Commission has found domestic remedies to be inadequate or ineffective include: Ibid., paras 60-68. Ibid., para. 75. Ibid., para. 77. SADCT, United Republic of Tanzania v. Cimexpan (Mauritius) LTD and Others, Case No. SADC (T) 01/2009 (11 June 2010). 386 ACHPR, OMCT v. Zaire, Comm. No. 25/89, para. 37. 382 383 384 385 92