129. Regarding Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly and discrimination, the State distinguished the communication from Amnesty International/Sudan 48/90, Comite Loosli Bachelard/Sudan 50/91, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights/Sudan 52/91 and Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa/Sudan 89/93 noting that in the latter cases government institutions perpetrated the violations. Although Complainant made reference to "parties", the list of persons assaulted was either ZANU (PF) or MDC or they were said not to be affiliated to any political party. The State pointed out that what was clear was that the violation was not directly attributed to the Government. The State further noted that the Government had taken the necessary measures to ensure that those who have perpetrated the violations were brought to book. And that there was no policy by the Government of Zimbabwe to trample on the rights of any individual to freely associate with a political party of his or her choice. The State reiterated the same argument with regard to allegations of violation of the right to participate freely in one's government. 130. Regarding Equal Protection of the law, the State refuted the claim that the alleged victims had been denied this protection in the manner and to the extent averred by the Complainant and denied that there was an outright denial of Police protection for Complainant's clients. 131. On the Clemency Order No. 1 of 2000, the Respondent State emphasised that the prerogative of clemency or amnesty is recognised as an integral part of constitutional democracies. To ensure that those who had committed more serious offences did not go unpunished, the Clemency Order excluded crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, indecent assault, statutory rape, theft and possession of arms. The State further noted that a decision by the Commission that the Clemency Order was an abdication of Zimbabwe's obligations under the Charter would amount to undermining the whole notion of the clemency prerogative worldwide adding that Clemency Orders are the prerogatives of the Head of State and this discretion was exercised reasonably under Clemency Order No 1 of 2000. 132. On the report issued by the Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution's Report E/CN.4/2001/9/Add.1, the State submitted that her appeal to the Government of Zimbabwe was based on reports that she had received on the alleged violation of human rights, and it was, according to the State, apparent from the report that: (i) the alleged violations were by the supporters of the ruling party and war veterans and not by the Government of Zimbabwe; and (ii) that Zimbabwe responded to the Special Rapporteur's appeal that all incidents were being investigated. 133. In conclusion, the State stated that the Special Rapporteur's report was supportive of its submissions that the Government of Zimbabwe did not have a policy to violate the rights if its people and also that it took its obligations on human rights seriously. Issues for determination and decision of the African Commission on the merits 134. The present communication raises several issues that must be addressed by the African Commission to determine whether the Respondent State has or has not violated the rights of the victims as alleged by the Complainant. The African Commission is called upon to determine: ' what non-state actors are and whether the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front - ZANU (PF) and the Zimbabwe Liberation War Veterans Association (War Veterans) can be termed non-state actors; ' the extent of a State's responsibility for human rights violations or acts committed by non-state actors; and ' whether the Clemency Order No. 1 of 2000 resulted to a violation of the Respondent State's obligations under Article 1 of the Charter. Issue One: What are non-state actors under international law? 135. Traditionally, international human rights law mostly talked to and about national governments or States. The need to look beyond the State or its agents as the primary subject of international law and the sole possible actor capable of impairing the enjoyment of the human rights of others, requires a term that captures the very many different kinds of individuals, groups or institutions whose behaviour, actions or policies have an effect on the enjoyment of human rights, and who can either be directly called to answer 16