Respondent State’s submissions on the merits 131. In its submissions, the Respondent State argues that all the Complainants’ submissions are without merit. The State cited the Supreme Court decision in Association of Independent Journalists and Others vs. Minister of State for Information and Publicity and others, where it was held that any law that seeks to regulate the practice of journalism has to conform to the stringent requirements for a law abridging the right conferred by section 20 of the Constitution in order to be valid. The State emphasised that the Media Commission does not have any discretion and that anybody who complies with the requirements of section 79 is entitled to accreditation. According to the State, the implication is that, if the requirements are too onerous, then the regulations, including section 83 which prohibits practicing as a journalist without accreditation, could be held to be unconstitutional. 132. The Complainants indicate that, regulations require personal information which includes marital status, national identity number, residential address, criminal record and details of accreditation to a specific media house. They claim that for purposes of licensing, these requirements cannot be said to be onerous. 133. According to the Respondent State, statistics held by the Media and Information Commission portrayed that none of these requirements are onerous. 134. The Respondent State argues that the Complainants’ claim that it is dangerous for journalists to disclose their residential address for fear of arrest after midnight cannot go unchallenged because there is no proof as to the fact that any journalist has been arrested at midnight after having filed the application for accreditation. 135. The Respondent quotes Article 9.2 of the African Charter, where the African Commission in interpreting the phrase ‘within the law’ has said that the authorities should not override constitutional provisions and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international human rights 6 standards. The Respondent recognises that national law cannot set aside the right to express and disseminate information which is recognised under international law. 136. Furthermore, the State contends that the Charter recognises the right of the State to justify resorting to limitation of the right which has to be justifiable in terms of international practice, and measures taken must be in line with protected interest, adding that Section 20(1) of the Zimbabwe Constitution is in line with Article 9.2 of the Charter. The Constitution provides for derogation of a fundamental right where the derogation is according to law. 137. The Respondent State submits further that, the legislation applies to all media houses and practitioners who wish to practice in Zimbabwe without posing any threat to the right of the public to receive information. 138. In addition to the above, that mere registration of the media does not inhibit the practice of journalism and that the Complainants’ submission does not portray how exercise of that right is curtailed by the requirement of registration. The State quotes the wordings of Article 13 of the European Convention which grants an absolute right as opposed to Article 9.2of the African Charter, adding that the interpretation by the American Convention is different from that in Article 10.1 of the European Convention which empowers legislation in respect for licensing of broadcasting, television and cinema, and Article 9of the African Charter which allows for the exercise of the right. Therefore, the State asserts, within the African Charter provisions, there is nothing that stops both technical and journalistic regulation as long as it is in accordance with the Charter. 139. The Respondent State contends that, the objective of regulating journalists is not to control them and to prevent or limit critical journalism, rather it is within the ambit of allowable derogations within the Charter. 140. According to the Respondent, the provisions being challenged by the Complainant may cause inconveniences to journalists. However, that they are not arbitrary and oppressive and do not violate the right of freedom of expression. 141. The State further submits that, the accreditation of journalists and licensing of the media is constitutional and compliant to the Charter. 142. The Respondent therefore submit that both sections 79 and 80 of the AIPPA are not in contravention of Article 9 of the Charter. Furthermore, that the provisions of Article 27(2), in line with section 20(1) of the Constitution and section 80 of the AIPPA provide that the rights and freedoms of