of Article 10 of the African Charter. The African Commission takes the view that freedom of association not only concerned the right to form a political party, but also guaranteed the right of such a party, once formed, to carry on its political activities freely. However, nothing in the Complainants file suggest that this right has been infringed by the Respondent State. The African Commission, 188. Declares that the Respondent State has not violated the Victim's right to free association as provided in Article 10 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 14 - The Right to Property Article 14 of the African Charter states: The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws. 189. The Complainant states that because agents of the Respondent State took away the Victim's belongings including documents, and cell phone, the Respondent State violated Article 14. 190. The Respondent State submits that no violation of Article 14 occurred as the documents seized from Victim were being used during the course of investigation. The African Commission agrees. It flies in the face of logic and common sense that if a suspect is arrested by the police on the reasonable ground that an offence is being committed, then to prevent the police from searching the suspect and seizing all documents and belongings in his or her possession on the ground that such a search and confiscation of the belongings may violate some laws is quite illogical. All states in the world have provisions in their laws that allow the properly constituted and competent authorities, especially in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community to conduct a dignified search of a suspect. In the instant matter the Respondent State has cited Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, (Chapter 9:07) which empowers it to seize any article which it believes may afford evidence of the commission or suspected commission of an offence, within Zimbabwe. The African Commission notes that in its rejoinder the Complainant has not contested the arguments of the Respondent State. 191. But on a more substantive point of law, what is a 'property right' (within the context of this matter) that accords with regional and international law? "Property rights" have an autonomous meaning under regional and international human rights law, which supersedes national legal definitions. In Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, the African Commission considered land, houses etc as 'property' for the purposes of Article 14 of the African Charter.37 The African Commission in the Ogoni case also found that the 'right to property' includes not only the right to have access to one's property and not to have one's property invaded or encroached upon,38 but also the right to undisturbed possession, use and control of such property however the owner(s) deem fit.39 192. The African Commission also notes that the ECHR have recognized that 'property rights' could also include the economic resources and rights over the common land of the applicants.40 Similarly, both the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and Inter American Court of Human Rights have examined the specific facts of individual situations to determine what should be classified as 'property rights', like registered title.41 The case of Dogan and others v Turkey42 is instructive in the instant Communication. Although the Applicants were unable to demonstrate registered title of lands from which they had been forcibly evicted by the Turkish authorities, the European Court of Human Rights observed that; [T]he notion 'possessions' in Article 1 has an autonomous meaning which is certainly not limited to ownership of physical goods: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as 'property rights', and thus as 'possessions' for the purposes of this provision.43 The African Commission is certain that in the minds of the framers of the African Charter, they did not envisage the temporary seizure of a mobile phone or diary as part of the property rights that should be robustly defended by Article 14. The African Commission, 193. Declares that the Respondent State has not violated the Victim's right to property as provided in Article 14 of the African Charter. 25