with. Instead the Complainants have only resorted to allegations that the judiciary has been reluctant to deal with, and finalizing the petitions before it. 94. The Respondent State submits that the Government has no role in the determination of election petitions thus it is untrue to allege that it frustrated the petitioners in the hearing of their petitions. The State added that most petitions filed in the High Court in 2001 were heard and judgments delivered to the parties within six months. 95. To substantiate the above argument, the State cited a number of cases that were disposed of within six months, includingLucia Makesea vs. Isaiah Shumba HC 8070/00, Phineas Chivazve Chiota vs. Registrar General of Elections and Ben Tumbare HC 8221/00 which was set down for hearing on th 18 July 2001 and judgment delivered on January 23, 2002; Godfrey Don Mumbamarwo vs. Saviour th th Kasukuwere set down on 9 July 2001 and judgment delivered on January 17 2002; Moses Mare vs. Elliot Chauke HC 8068/00 judgment delivered on June 20, 2001 and; Patrick Tsumele vs. Aaron Baloyi HC 8072/00judgment delivered on June 21, 2001. 96. More recently after setting up of the Electoral Court, petitions have been disposed of in six months. In cases decided by the High Court, the loosing [sic] parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard most of the appeals and the MDC lost in some of the cases, such as Hove vs. Joram Gumbo with respect to the Mberengwa West Constituency. Some cases were dismissed as the appellants were not willing to prosecute their cases, for example, Mazurani vs. Mbotekw, with respect to the Zvishavane Constituency and Mumbamarwo vs. S Kasukuwere with respect to the Mt Darwin Constituency. 97. According to the Respondent State, in the above cited cases the petitioners were asked by the Supreme Court to file their heads of argument but they failed and the cases were subsequently dismissed under Rule 44 of the Supreme Court Rules for non-compliance with court rules. The same applies to Order 238 Rule 2 (b) of the High Court Rules. 98. The State added that the petitioners have over time withdrawn petitions after realizing the weaknesses of their cases and paid wasted costs to the Respondents acknowledging their fault for bringing uncommitted and misconceived petitions. This was the case with respect to Elphas Mukonoweshuro vs. Ben Mahofa Case No. EP 11/05; Aaron Chinhara vs. Lovemore Mupukuta EP 20/05; Eileen Heather Dorothy Bennet vs. Samuel Undenge Case No. EP 11/05; Evelyn Masaiti vs. Mike Nyambuya EP 18/05; Hilda Suka Mafudza vs. Patrick Zhuwawo 16/05 and; Ian Kay vs. Sydney Tigere Sekeremayi Case No. EP 16/05. 99. It is further submitted by the State that in the above mentioned circumstances the Government did not frustrate the petitioners in pursuing legal recourse according to the law. In fact, it is the petitioners who did not pursue their petitions expeditiously. 100. Further in terms of the Practice Directions of the Supreme Court, Practice Direction No. 1 of 1993 reported in the Zimbabwe Law Reports pages 241 (5) the Supreme Court as per Gubbay CJ directed that:“If in any particular case, whether of a criminal nature, a delay in obtaining judgment should occur which is considered inordinate the aggrieved party or his legal practitioner is invited to bring such delay to the attention of the Chief Justice or the Judge President if it be in respect of a High Court matter, and to the Chief Magistrate, if it be a magistrates Court matter. Upon receipt of such notification the Chief Justice, the Judge President or the chief Magistrate whoever has been addressed to will proceed to investigate the complaint, and provided he is satisfied that in all circumstances the delay is unreasonable, will apply his best endeavors to obviate it.” 101. The Respondent State submits that the communication does not indicate if at any point the various Complainants addressed the issue of delays to the Judge President or Chief Justice, and if that was so whether the Judge President and the Chief justice did nothing after receiving the complainant [sic]. The Complainant’s allegations are unsubstantiated and thus ought to be dismissed as unfounded. 102. Thus, in the opinion of the State, the judiciary and indeed relevant provisions of laws enable petitions to be concluded within a reasonable time contrary to the Complainant allegations. 103. Concerning allegations of violations of Article 13, the Respondent State denied that the Republic of Zimbabwe violatedArticle 13 by enacting laws curtailing freedoms of association, assembly