are voluntary migrants are not denied the right to vote per se, as they can always travel back to Zimbabwe to vote. 63. The Respondent State agrees with the Complainant that elections are at the heart of democracy and the right to vote undeniably forms the basis and foundation of any democratic government. The Respondent State however submits that voting has been traditionally subject to citizenship and residency requirements, and that therefore, only voters residing in the country and in the electoral district are eligible to vote. It further submits that citizens living abroad retain the right to vote but would need to travel to their relevant constituencies to cast their vote. The State submits that during conflict situations, exceptions are made for people living outside their country as displaced persons or refugees, and that this is a different scenario from voluntary migrants, as the latter category are nonresidents by choice. 64. The Respondent State avers that the mere lack of legal provisions for absentee voting is not disenfranchisement, as it only limits the right to vote but does not entirely eliminate its exercise. 65. The Respondent State submits that citizens who reside abroad are not denied the right to vote, and that what is required is registration in their constituencies, after which they can vote. It avers that external voting is by its nature expensive and with economic sanctions having been imposed on Zimbabwe, it would be an unbearable burden to require that Zimbabwe internationalize its elections. The Respondent State concludes that Zimbabwe is a peaceful country and whoever wants to participate in elections can always travel to the homeland and vote. 66. Thus, according to the Respondent State, the residence restrictions imposed by the Zimbabwe Electoral Act are reasonable and do not violate Articles 2, 3 (1) and (2), 9 and 13(1) of the African Charter. The Commission’s analysis on the Merits 67. In the present Communication, the Commission is called to examine two interrelated but distinct points of contention: firstly, on the placement of a residency requirement as a precondition for citizens to exercise their right to vote, and, secondly, on the provision of external voting only to a select category of citizens, specifically, persons on duty in the service of government and their spouses. In essence, the Commission will determine whether the restrictions placed by the Respondent State on the right to vote on the basis of residency is an acceptable limitation of the right, and whether allowing only a select category of citizens to vote from abroad while others have to travel back home is either discriminatory or amounts to unequal treatment. It must be kept in mind that the subjects of this Communication are citizens of the Respondent State but were not 13