PART C: Protection against Torture: Procedures before the African Commission and African Human Rights Court By contrast, in the cases of Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe409 and Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe410, respectively, the Commission appears to have taken a different position with regard to the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in Zimbabwe. The facts in the Michael Majuru and Obert Chinhamo cases were largely similar to those in the Gabriel Shumba case: in that the complainants had been subjected to a series of intimidation, threats and harassment prompting them to flee to South Africa fearing for their life. However, the Commission appears to have distinguished the cases on grounds of how well the complainants established their fear for their lives. The Commission reasoned that: In the above cases, there is one thing in common - the clear establishments of the element of fear perpetrated by identified state institutions, fear which in the case, the Commission observed that “it would be reversing the clock of justice to request the complainant to attempt local remedies”. In the communication under consideration however, Mr Michael Majuru alleges that he fled the country for fear of his life, that he was intimidated and harassed by the Minister of Justice and by suspected state agents. He also indicated that he received “a telephone call from a sympathetic member of the legal fraternity and the police that the Respondent State was fabricating a case against him and that he was to be arrested and incarcerated on unspecified charges as punishment for defying the Respondent’s orders”. In this communication, it is clear that the Complainant has simply made general accusations and has not corroborated his allegations with documentary evidence, sworn affidavits or testimonies of others. He claims the Minister sent an Instruction through a colleague of his but there is no way of ascertaining this fact. The applicant was the President of the Administrative Court, and has not show how the instruction purportedly sent by the Minister through the Complainant’s colleague, who the Commission is not told the kind of influence he had over the Complainant, could have or did intimidate him. Apart from the direct telephone call the Complainant claims he received from the Minister on 23rd October and 24th November 2003, all the alleged threats intimidations and harassment he claims, were perpetrated by persons he suspects were government agents. Most of his allegations are unsubstantiated. For example, he indicated in paragraph 2.5.4.7 of his submissions that “the Minister expressed his displeasure with the said decision and further attempted to unduly influence and/or threaten the Complainant”. He fails to show how this attempted influence or threat by the Minister was carried out. It is further observed by the Commission that the alleged threat or pressure claimed by the Complainant to have been meted by Enoch Kamushinda, who the complainant himself refers to as a suspected Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) operative, has not been substantiated: neither has the purported pressure and entrapment alleged to have been made by Mr Ben Chisvo who according to the Complainant, is a suspected CIO informer. Furthermore, the Complainant alleged he received a telephone call from a sympathetic member of the legal fraternity and the police that the Respondent State was fabricating a case against him, and that he was to 409 ACHPR, Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 308/05, 44th Ordinary Session (24 November 2008). 410 ACHPR, Obert Chinhamo v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 307/05, 42nd Ordinary Session (28 November 2007). 97