measures include investigating allegations of violations as well as prosecuting and punishing those responsible for violations contained in the African Charter6 . 75. It is submitted by the Complainant that in the present communication State agents were directly involved in committing serious human rights violations such as in the case of the extra judicial execution of Tichaona Chiminya and Talent Mabika in Manicaland Province by an officer of the Central Intelligence Organisation. 76. It is also claimed that violent acts were carried out by State agents acting under the guise of public authority. According to the Complainant, there were instances where police officers refused to record and investigate complaints of victims of various abuses thereby removing the protection of the law from the victims. Annexed to the communication as appendix one were statements allegedly made by alleged victims of violence stating that they made reports to the police but no action was taken, neither was any arrests made. Most of them claimed the Police refused to investigate their complaints because they were in the opposition MDC party. 77. The Complainant averred that the Government of Zimbabwe failed to provide security to members of opposition political parties thereby allowing serious or massive violations of human rights, adding that, the law enforcement agents on several occasions failed to intervene to prevent serious violations of human rights. The Complainant argued that it is the primary responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe to secure the safety and the liberty of all of its citizens and to conduct investigations into allegations of torture, murder and other human rights violations7 78. Regarding the Clemency Order No 1 of 2000 granting a general amnesty for politically motivated crimes committed in the period preceding the June 2000 general elections, the complainant submitted that by failing to secure the safety of its citizens and by granting a general amnesty, the Respondent State had failed to respect the obligations imposed on it under Article 1 of the African Charter8 . Any violation of the provisions of the African Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1 of the African Charter and that goes to the root of the African Charter since the obligations imposed by Article 1 of the African Charter are peremptory9 . Allegation of violation of Article 2 of the African Charter - Non-discrimination 79. The Complainant alleged a violation of Article 2 of the African Charter which provides that "every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or any status". 80. The Complainant submitted further that the Respondent State denied the victims their rights as guaranteed by the African Charter on the basis of their political opinions, and by so doing, the Respondent State violated Article 2 of the African Charter. 81. Article 2 of the African Charter guarantees enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the African Charter without distinction of any kind including political opinion 10 and the African Commission has held that the rights guaranteed in Article 2 are an important entitlement as the availability or lack of them affects the capacity of one to enjoy many other rights11 . Allegation of violation of Article 3(2) of the African Charter 82. The Complainant also alleged a violation of Article 3(2) of the African Charter which provides that "every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law". 83. The Complainant asserted that the police selectively enforced the law to prejudice victims of gross violations of human rights. The Complainant argued that the statements appended as appendix one to the communication revealed that the police refused to record and investigate complaints filed by the victims in violation of Article 3(2) of the African Charter. 84. The complainant requested the African Commission to have due regard to the Zimbabwe Supreme Court case of Chavunduka & anor v Commissioner of Police12 when interpreting Article 3(2) of the African Charter, noting that the request was based on the African Commission's own jurisprudence which states that in interpreting the African Charter, the African Commission may have regard to principles of law laid down by States Parties to the African Charter and African Practices consistent with international human rights norms and standards 13 In the Chavunduka matter, the Supreme Court held that the police have the public duty to enforce the law. Consequently the entitlement of every person to the equal protection of the law embraces the right to require the police to perform their public duty in respect of law enforcement. This 9