impart information. They claim that the deportation of Mr Meldrum deprived him of his rights, as well as denying the general citizenry their rights to receive information. 80. The Complainants recall that the restrictions on freedom of expression under international law have been examined under various tests of necessity, proportionality and achievement of a legitimate objective, and request the Commission to apply the same tests to the present communication. Respondent State’s submission 81. The Respondent State did not formally submit its arguments on the merits in spite of several reminders. However, it should be noted that in its submission on admissibility dated 16 November 2005, the Respondent State also made arguments relating to the merits of the communication. The African Commission here below summarises those arguments and considers them as the State’s submissions on the merits of the present communication. 82. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 2, the Respondent State denies that the victim’s right to equality before the law was violated. The State submits that the Complainant faced deportation because of alleged violations of the terms of his Residence Permit which entitled him to stay in Zimbabwe. According to the State, it is wrong to suggest that Mr Meldrum’s right to equality before the law was violated because of his opinion and/or origin. 83. Concerning Article 3, the Respondent State submits that the victim was afforded protection of the law, adding that it is on record that the victim approached local courts in Zimbabwe at least four times prior to his deportation and that the matters were given due consideration. 84. With regards to the alleged violation of Article 7, the Respondent State submits that the victim was not denied his right to appeal. The State argues that he made an application to the High Court which, in turn, was referred to the Supreme Court, noting that the issues were still pending before the Supreme Court at the time the victim left for the United Kingdom. The Respondent State argues that the Complainant was at liberty to approach the courts, whenever he deemed it necessary to do so. 85. Concerning Article 9, the Respondent State submits that while the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in theConstitution of Zimbabwe and contained in Article 9 of the African Charter, it would be inappropriate for the victim to seek to enforce that right by way of publishing falsehoods. Moreover, the State avers, publications of falsehoods are in direct contravention of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). 86. On the alleged violation of Article 12.4, the Respondent State submits that Immigration Officials responsible for Mr Meldrum’s deportation were guided by Section 14(1)(g) of the Immigration Act. Under this law, the State argues, Mr Meldrum was declared a prohibited immigrant and the Chief Immigration Officer revoked his Residence Permit in terms of Section 20(2) of Statutory Instrument 195 of 1998. The decision to deport Mr Meldrum, according to the Respondent State, cannot therefore be considered as outside of the provisions of the law as it was made by the Chief Immigration Officer who was acting within the purview of the law governing the deportation of nonnationals, namely the Immigration Act. 87. Concerning Article 26, the Respondent offers no argument in response to allegations made by the Complainant. Decision of the Commission on the merits Alleged violation of Articles 2 and 3 88. The Commission has considered the submissions of both parties regarding the alleged violations of the African Charter.