not elapsed. It states that the facts, as agreed to by Complainant, shows that Victim was brought to Court within the stipulated statutory period and there was no arbitrariness in his arrest and therefore the allegation of a violation Article 6 should be dismissed. Respondent State Rebuttal of Article 7 104. The Respondent State says that the Complainant alleges a denial of access to legal representation. It submits that this is not factually correct. It argues that the Victim requested for legal representation and his lawyer was contacted and the Victim briefed him and subsequently went to court on 16 January 2003 with that lawyer. The Respondent State urges the African Commission to consider that the Victim was detained for two (2) nights and factually weigh the possibilities of such denial taking into account the fact that "he who alleges, must prove." The Respondent State avers that the Victim was not denied legal representation as the lawyer attended when the Victim made the request. It concludes that the Complainant has just made a bare allegation when factually the evidence shows otherwise. It urges the African Commission to make a finding that Article 7 (c) of the African Charter was not violated. Respondent State Rebuttal of Article 10(1) 105. Responding to the alleged Violation of Article 10(1), the Respondent State argues that the Victim's arrest was for contravening a section of POSA following the discovery of a written document on his person. It states that the three other persons in his company at the time of the arrest denied authoring the document. It states that the Victim was not arrested for his association with a political party, but rather on the State informs the African Commission that the Attorney General later withdrew charges before plea to enable investigation to be carried as to who the author of the document found in Victim possession was. However, it avers, the Victim refused to submit to handwriting samples and disappeared to South Africa. The Respondent State states that the Victim was arrested on the basis that there was reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and he was brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, competent in law to hear the case and had jurisdiction over the subject matter. It argues that this, therefore, could not have been in pursuit of an agenda to deny the Victim his freedom of association. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant has failed to show that the arrest of the Victim was perpetrated in an effort to deny him his freedom of association. Respondent State Rebuttal of Article 14 106. The Respondent State submits that no violation of Article 14 occurred as the documents seized from the Victim were being used to investigate a suspected crime. It says that the Complainant should be aware that derogation from the provision of the African Charter in respect of this Article is provided where deprivation is "in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate laws. Citing Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, (Chapter 9:07) it states that: "The State may in accordance with this part, seize any article(b) which it is on reasonable grounds believed may afford evidence of the commission or suspected commission of an offence, whether within Zimbabwe or elsewhere; or..." 107. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the seizure of documents in the Victim's possession was not for the purpose of depriving him of his property, but for providing evidence pertaining to offences allegedly committed by him and his accomplices. It says that the allegation of a violation of this Article should therefore be dismissed. 108. Respondent State requests the African Commission to dismiss the Complaint. It also states that the Complainant in paragraph 17 of its Merit submission have not stated as to who should carry out the inquiry and investigations in terms of which provisions of the law. In terms of paragraph 18 of the Complainants' Merit submission, it says that the prayer is outside the purview of possible decisions that may be given by the African Commission. It also states that the Complainant did not state the legal basis for this prayer. 109. The Respondent State concludes by saying that the submission by the Complainant lack any merit due to the absence of evidence to substantiate allegations of violations of the African Charter, either individually or collectively. It urges the African Commission to make a finding that no violations of the 12