Paragraph 23 “… persons affected by use of force and firearms or their legal representatives shall have access to an independent process, including a judicial process. In the event of the death of such persons, this provision shall apply to their dependents accordingly.” 88. The Respondent State recalls that law enforcement agents have a duty under the Constitution of Zimbabwe to preserve internal security and to maintain AC HP R law and order. It notes that the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act permits the use of reasonable force to subdue a person fleeing from arrest. The Respondent State submits that where such a person persists in fleeing, the subsequent killing by law enforcement agents is described as justifiable homicide. 89. The Respondent State submits that in the cases involving Beaven Tatenda Kazingachire and Munyaradzi Never Chitsenga, the law enforcement agents were carrying out their statutory duties of maintaining law and order, and therefore, the killings in respect of these were unintentional. The Respondent State submits that the action of these law enforcement agents was justifiable in the circumstances, as there was an honest belief that they had a valid reason for firing at the persons concerned. According to the Respondent State, they were trying to stop suspected criminals from fleeing. 90. The Respondent State further submits that the UK legislation cited by the Complainant does not fall into the category of conventions or international law envisaged under Articles 60 and 61 of the African Charter. Therefore, it is the Respondent State‟s contention that the African Commission should not make a recommendation as requested by the Complainant because it would be outside the mandate of the African Commission to do so. The Respondent 23