and expression hence violating the rights of citizens to participate in governance issues and to exercise their right to a referendum in a transparent and conducive environment. 104. The State submitted that the Complainants simply aver that the Government has passed such laws, but did not state the specific laws enacted. Neither did they describe the human rights violations that took place, the dates or place the violations occurred, nor provide the names of the victims who suffered as a result of the enacted laws. 105. By making general and unsubstantiated allegations the Complainants are being untruthful and their claims should not be accepted. The Government is being called upon to “defend” itself in the dark which is very unfortunate. 106. Further, it is submitted that in terms of the African Commission’s Information Sheet No. 3 on Communication Procedure, it is a requirement that the author of the communication should make precise allegations of fact attaching relevant documents and not general allegations. Hence the Complainants have failed to prove a violation of Article 13. 107. With respect to allegations regarding violations of Article 26 of the Charter, the Respondent State denied that it had violated this Article. It denied that the Government failed to guarantee the independent functioning of the judiciary. It submitted that the judiciary of Zimbabwe has always been independent and free from executive interference, adding that this was evidenced by the fact that the election petitions filed in the courts resulted in the Courts setting aside the election results where irregularities were found. This, according to the State, was regardless of the party to which the petition belonged. The State added that quite a number of petitions were ruled in favor of the opposition, a situation which according to the State, would not have been so if there was executive interference, as alleged by the Complainants. 108. On the issue of the legal status of the Judges, the State submits that Section 79B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe states that members of the judiciary “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority” 109. On the issue of the removal of the Judges from office, the State drew the Commission’s attention to Section 87 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which provides that “Inability to discharge the functions of [the], whether arising from infirmity of the body or mind or any other cause, or for misbehavior is the only ground upon which dismissal may be authorized. The words ‘any other cause’”, it is submitted, refer to medical causes or causes not relating to the moral blameworthiness of the judge in question. 110. On the issue of salaries payable to the judges, the State submits that the salaries of judges may not be reduced during the tenure of office in terms of the Constitution. This provision is meant to uphold the independence of the judiciary. 111. On the issue of judicial proceedings, the State notes that all court proceedings in Zimbabwe are carried out in open court in accordance with Section 18 (10) and (14) of the Constitution. This includes the announcement of the court’s decision and the reasons for the decision delivered at the same time. 112. The Respondent State affirms that all election petitions were held in open court, and that the State endeavored to guarantee the independence of the courts. 113. The State concluded in the regard by submitting that in light of the above mentioned provisions to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, the Complainant’s assertion that a number of judges were victimized after they ruled in favor of the MDC is denied. 114. The State cited the case of Justice Makarau who according to the State, was re-appointed to the Electoral Court despite ruling against ZANU PF in the Election Petitions, while Justice Ziyambi was promoted to the Supreme Court. The State added that several petitions were decided in favour of the MDC and none of the judges were victimized for the judgments. 115. The Respondent State submits that Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition MDC was acquitted of the treason charges. The presiding judge, Justice Paddington Garwe was not victimized for the decision and he remains the Judge President of the High Court of Zimbabwe. 116. For all the judges who resigned from the bench, no specific reasons were availed as is mandatory in law. None has openly stated if they resigned because of political reasons. 117. The State submits that the Complainants make bold allegations to the effect that one judge who ruled in favour of the MDC was victimized and fled the country without naming the judge or giving