2. the right to be heard and tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or the tribunal under Article 7 as the Zimbabwe courts failed to provide a remedy to the election petitions; 3. the right of every citizen to participate freely in the government of his country either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with provisions of the law under Article 13 by enacting laws that curtailed freedoms such as association, assembly and expression ; and 4. the duty of the State to guarantee the independence of the courts and the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter under Article 26 based on the fact that the principle of separation of powers was not duly observed as one of the judges resigned and fled the country citing threats after he ruled in favour of the opposition. 63. Regarding Article 1, the communication alleges that the Respondent State has failed to adopt legislative and administrative measures to give effect to the provisions of the Charter. It is submitted that the fact that elections that took place in Zimbabwe were organised in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of Zimbabwe does not mean that the manner in which those elections were conducted or their dispute were adjudicated do not violate provisions of the Charter. The law itself (including the constitutional provisions) can constitute the means whereby the rights protected under the Charter are violated. 64. The Complainants rely on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in the case Velasquez Rodriguez where the Court held that: “The obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of human rights is not fulfilled by the existence of a legal system designed to make it impossible to comply with this obligation… it also requires the 2 government to conduct itself so as to effectively ensure the free and full exercise of human rights”. 65. The Complainants also quote the advisory opinion delivered by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights where the Court found that: “… The fact that these are domestic laws adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution means nothing if they are the means through which protected rights and freedoms are 3 violated” 66. It is submitted that although the Respondent State has enacted laws that make provisions for remedies, it has failed to render those remedies efficient as the proceedings can be unduly prolonged as was the case in the matter under consideration where “it failed to implement and uphold electoral laws through reasonably expeditious resolution or other measures that protect the rights of the citizens”. 67. The Complainants allege that the government of Zimbabwe has violated Article 1 of the Charter because the existing electoral laws are not sufficiently certain, do not prevent candidates whose election is contested from sitting in the parliament before the Courts rule on their cases, and do not create any obligation upon the courts to determine the electoral challenges brought before them within a fixed period. The Complainants also rely on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the case of Gustavo Arranza v Argentina where it held that: “The absence of an effective remedy to violations of the rights recognised by the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which the remedy is lacking. In that sense, it should be emphasised that, for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognised, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress. A remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the 4 particular circumstances in a given case, cannot be considered effective”. 68. The communication further recalls the interpretation made by the African Commission of Article 1 in the case of Jawara v The Gambia, where the Commission found that: Article 1 gives the Charter the legally binding character always attributed to international treaties of this sort. Therefore a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1. If a state party to the Charter fails to recognise the provisions of the same, the is [sic] no doubt that it is in violation of the Article. Its violation therefore goes to the root of the Charter.”