69. The Complainants note that the Respondent State’s failure to enact laws that further the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and its failure to provide real and efficient remedy in the events of the violation of the same rights and freedoms amount to a violation of Article 1. It is further submitted that the failure of the judiciary to decide promptly, effectively and meaningfully to the alleged violations of rights and electoral irregularities is imputable to the State since the Judiciary is a branch of the latter. The communication then quoted the decision of the InterAmerican Court on Human Rights in the aforementioned Velasquez Rodriguez case, where it is stated that: “This obligation implies the duty of the State party to organise all the State apparatus and in general, all structures through which the exercise of public power is manifested, in such a manner that they are able to legally ensure the free and full exercise of human rights”. 70. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State cannot rely on its domestic law to justify its failure to perform its obligations under the Charter. 71. As for Article 3 of the Charter, the communication recalls that equality before and equal protection of the law means equality with regard to interpretation, application and enforcement of the law. It emphasised that rights are guaranteed to all regardless of one’s political opinion. 72. The Complainants note that successful petitions before Zimbabwean courts would have granted the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) a large majority in Parliament “should be taken into consideration by the judiciary in terms of the urgency with which the matters were disposed of”. It is submitted that the MDC was victim of discrimination by the judiciary, although such discrimination might have been caused by the lack of resources or manpower to deal with the petitions. The lack of resources and manpower, it is alleged, cannot dispense the state from its obligation to respect and protect the rights enshrined in the Charter. 73. According to the authors of the communication, since the successful disposition of the petitions would have drastically altered the composition of Parliament, the failure of the Judiciary to deal promptly with those petitions is tantamount to the absence of equality before the law and equal protection of the law for victims of human rights violations 74. The Complainants allege that the inordinate delay in dealing with petitions constitute a violation of Article 7(1)(d), as that affects the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable time (right to due process of law). The Complainants quote the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) General Comment No 13, where the HRC held that the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable time includes not only the time by which the trial should start, but also the time by which it should end and the judgment rendered both in first instance and on appeal. 75. In the Complainants’ view, the right to due process of law was violated in the matter before the Commission as the courts have failed to rule on the electoral petitions within a reasonable period of time. It is also alleged that appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court was ineffective. The communication recalls the approach of the African Commission to the right to appeal adopted in its decision on Amnesty International, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights v Sudan, where the Commission held that: “The right to appeal being a general and non-derogable principle of international law must, where it exists, satisfy the conditions of effectiveness. An effective appeal is one that, subsequent to the hearing by the competent tribunal of first instance, may reasonably lead to a reconsideration of the case by superior jurisdiction, which requires that the latter should, in this regard, provide all necessary guarantees of good administration of justice” 76. The authors of the communication further denounce the lack of the independence of the judiciary in Zimbabwe. They cite the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and 5 Lawyers submitted with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2002/43 , and conclude that the “absence or weakening of institutions whose mandate is to provide remedies in instances of violations supports the assertion of petitioners of institutions that are not competent to render real and effective remedies, contrary to the intentions of the drafters of the Charter under Articles 7 and26” .