69. The State added that the Supreme Court refrained from deliberating on the merits of the case, directing the Complainants to “first put its house in order”, either by registering or by refraining from carrying on mass media services, and thereafter approaching the courts. The State added that the Complainants did not comply with the Court order but instead went ahead to continue publishing. According to the Respondent State, this led to the closure of its two papers and seizure of its property by the Police. According to the Respondent State, the Complainant subsequently made an application to register in terms of the AIPPA but this application was unsuccessful. 70. The Respondent State explains the background to the AIPPA and notes that the Act was enacted by the Parliament of Zimbabwe in 2002 to, among other things: 1. 2. provide members of the public with the right of access to information held by public bodies; make public bodies accountable by giving a right to request correction of misrepresented personal information; 3. prevent the authorised collection, use or disclosure of personal information by public bodies; 4. protect personal privacy, to provide for the regulation of the mass media and to establish a Media and Information Commission. 71. It notes further that the regulation of the mass media constitutes part and not the sole provision of the Act, adding that prior to the enactment of the Act, there was no regulation of the press in the country and that the regulation was necessitated by a number of “irresponsible and misleading publications in the media…”. According to the State, to address the security interests of the nation as well as protect the rights of others, the rights which “hitherto the press enjoyed without statutory limitation were thus subjected to control”, adding that this was intended to instil discipline and ensure responsibility within the profession. 72. The State notes further that notwithstanding the prohibition under the Act, section 93 allows any person who was lawfully operating a mass media service at the time of the coming into force of the Act to continue practising for a period of three months from the date of commencement of the Act. However, at the end of the three months, the necessary regulations were not in place, the period was extended to the end of December 2002. The State submits that Complainant’s averment that“publication is specifically allowed by the Law while any application for registration is pending”, is misleading. 73. The State submits that the communication does not meet the requirements under Articles 56.3, 56.5 and 56.6 of the African Charter and should thus be declared inadmissible. 74. With regards to Article 56.3, the State submits that the language used in the communication and its attachments is disparaging of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. To support this claim the State refers the African Commission to paragraphs (r) (page 6), 13, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 30 and 31 in the Complainants’ Summary of facts submitted on 10 November 2003. The State submits further that on 12 September 2003, the Complainants published an issue of its newspaper in which it statedinter alia that “…the handing down of the judgment marked a sad day for Zimbabwe’s constitutional history. I suppose we should be immensely thankful that we are not prisoners on death row because the practical effect of this judgment is that had we been challenging the death penalty and not AIPPA, we would have had to hang first and challenge the penalty from hell”[/quote]. According to the State, this statement shows the contempt that the Complainant has for the Supreme Court. 75. The State notes further that the implications of the statement and the paragraphs mentioned above includes the fact that: • • there is bias in the appointment of judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the President; that the composition of the Supreme Court that heard the Complainants’ matter was manipulated so that a junior judge, Judge Sandura, was omitted. The State claims that the use of the word “omitted” clearly connotes a motive by the Chief Justice to exclude Judge Sandura; and