th th th 30. At its 39 Ordinary Session held from 11 -25 May 2006 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the communication and deferred further consideration on the merits to its th 40 Ordinary Session because the State’s submissions were received late. th 31. By Note Verbale of 29 May 2006 and by letter of the same date both parties were notified of the Commission’s decision. th 32. At its 40 Session, the African Commission deferred consideration of the communication to its st 41 Session due to lack of time. st 33. At its 41 Ordinary Session the African Commission deferred consideration of the communication nd to its 42 Session to allow the Secretariat more time to prepare the draft decision. th 34. By Note Verbale of 10 July and letter of the same date, both parties to the communication were notified of the Commission’s decision. nd th th 35. At its 42 Ordinary Session held in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo from 15 -29 November 2007, the African Commission considered the Communication and decided to defer its decision on the merits due to lack of time. th 36. By Note Verbale of 19 December 2007, and by letter of the same date, both parties to the communication were notified of the Commission’s decision. The Law Admissibility Submissions on admissibility 37. The Respondent State argued that the communication be declared inadmissible claiming it does not meet the requirements of Articles 56(2), 56(3), 56(4) and 56(5). 38. Article 56(2) stipulates that the communication should be in conformity with the Charter of the OAU and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. According to the State, and quoting from the African Commission’s Information Fact Sheet No. 3 – Communication Procedure, the author of a communication should make precise allegations of facts attaching relevant documents, if possible, and avoid making allegations in general terms. The State avers that the complaint is written in general terms and does not make any precise allegations. The State notes further that the Complainants simply alleged that the State has violated the Charter without stating the rights violated, where the violation took place and the date on which the violation took place and that the Complainants did not provide the names of the victims. 39. The Complainants submit that four years after the elections the Supreme and High Court have failed to provide a speedy and effective remedy. That the High Court initially allocated three judges to handle the matters. One of the judges resigned citing threats after he had ruled in favour of the opposition. The three judges were replaced and the matters have not been completed. That the violations that occurred during the election period have not been addressed for over four years. 40. The Complainants on the other hand aver that the communication details infringements of the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and according to them, a prima facie violation of human rights, and argued that the communication fulfilled the condition under Article 56(2) of the Charter. 41. With respect to Article 56(3), the State argues that the communication is written in disparaging language directed at the State of Zimbabwe and its Judiciary. It indicates that the Complainants allege a failure of the State to guarantee the independence and competent functioning of the judiciary, and that the government has failed to observe the principle of separation of powers. The State argues further that the communication alleges that a judge resigned under pressure after ruling in favour of the MDC. The State added that none of the judges have been victimised or resigned as a result of their judgment and concluded that the complaint is a misrepresentation of facts and full of false information which are insulting to the State and its judiciary – aimed at bring the State into disrepute and therefore does not conform with the provisions underArticle 56(3) of the African Charter. The Complainants aver that the communication is not written in an insulting or disparaging language, that no disparaging or insulting language of the government of the Republic of Zimbabwe or any