quickly. The State further submitted that it set up an Electoral Court to have petitions dealt with within a reasonable time. However, the MDC challenged the composition of the Electoral Court which delayed the petitions before it and it cannot therefore be said that the judiciary has been reluctant to deal with petitions expeditiously. 133. 7(1)(d) of the Charter imports two things; the right to be heard within a reasonable time and the right to be heard by an impartial tribunal. These are the issues which must be borne out by the evidence to warrant the Commission’s findings of a violation thereof. 134. In respect of the first arm of this claim – the right to be tried within a reasonable time, the Responded State conceded in its response to delays in disposing with some of the claims, but emphasized that the delay was occasioned by the Complainants who had failed to file processes expeditiously before the Courts as required by the law and/or failed to file their heads of arguments as required by the Supreme Court. These are not a mere blanket denial of the allegations; they raise serious irregularities against the Complainant’s averments, which were not controverter by the Complainants. 135. In respect of the second arm of the claim – the right to be heard by an impartial tribunal, the submission of the Respondent State and the evidence before the Commission show that, the Courts had actually resolved some cases in favour of the petitioners as against the ruling party (ZANU-PF), that the Supreme Court had thrown out some cases in which the petitioners failed to comply with the Court’s directives requesting them to file their heads of arguments. There is no evidence to suggest that the Courts refused to adjudicate on the Complainants cases as filed before the Courts, but did so in respect of cases filed by the ruling party (ZANU-PF), or that the Court failed or refused to grant the Complainants the relief sought, but did so to other petitioners. This Commission does not therefore find any violation of 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 136. The Complainants also alleged violation of 13(1) of the Charter which provides that: “Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law”. 137. The Complainants’ submissions in support of this allegation hinged on their argument that the Courts failed to render judgment on the elections petitions on time. According to the Complainant, the right to freely participate in government is rendered meaningless if the judiciary fails to decide expeditiously on the electoral disputes brought before it, since that would allow for candidates whose elections are contested to sit in Parliament while the petitions are still lis pendens . The Respondent State on its part argued on the expeditious disposal of petitions by the High Court, usually, within six 11 months as stipulated by the law establishing the Electoral Court. The Complainants have not adduced any evidence before this Commission to contradict the assertions of the State. It is thus the findings of this Commission that the Complainants have failed to convince it that there has been a violation of 13(1). 138. The Complainants submitted further that violation of 7(1)(d) constitutes in one respect violation of Article 26 of the Charter. Article 26 of the Charter provides that: “State Parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter”. 139. According to the Complainants, the judiciary is weak and ineffective. The Complainants argue that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is not independent and further that judges who entered decisions against the government interest were victimized. The Respondent State replied that the Judiciary in Zimbabwe was independent and judges were not victimized for their decisions, adding that one such judge was promoted to the Supreme Court. 140. The Respondent State submits that those judges who resigned never made any public statement as to the cause of the resignations. For the Complainants to link their resignations to victimization from the government, without leading any evidence in support thereto, does in the view of the Commission, amount to speculations. 141. The evidence before the Commission relating to the conduct of the judiciary in respect of the petitions forming the basis of this Communication does not show that the judiciary was influenced by