5. Phanuel Mapingure - Z$ 950, 000.00 - November 16, 2005 6. Ruth Manika - Z$ 8, 552.50 - July 01, 2005 7. Sophia Matasva - Z$ 4, 850, 000.00 - March 29, 2006 8. Trust Shumba - Z$ 1, 085, 000.00 - October 04, 2004 9. Mercy Magunje - Z$ 9, 030.00 - January 2007 The Courts also made orders for interest in respect of each award and gave costs to the Applicants. The judgment debts have not been paid. It is upon the non-compliance with the judgments or orders of the Courts that this application has been brought. The Applicants' case is that the Respondent has violated Articles 4 (c) and 6 (1) of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, SADC, (the Treaty) by: (a) failing to ensure that effective remedies are available to them, and thus failing to act in accordance with the principles of human rights, and (b) implementing measures likely to jeopardise the principles of human rights provided for in the Treaty. Article 4 (c) provides: "SADC and its Member States shall act in accordance with the following principles . . . human rights, democracy, and the rule of law." Article 6 (1) states as follows: "Member States undertake to adopt adequate measures to promote the achievement of the objectives of SADC, and shall refrain from taking any measures likely to jeopardise the sustenance of its principles, the achievement of its objectives and the implementation of the provisions of this Treaty." In the circumstances, the Applicants seek, the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that the Respondent is in breach of the Treaty by failing to comply with Orders of the High Court of that country; (b) a declaration that section 5 (2) of the State Liability Act [Cap 8:14] of the Respondent is in breach of the Treaty in so far as it provides that property of the State may not form the subject-matter of execution, attachment or process to satisfy a judgment debt; (c) such further and/or alternative reliefs as the Tribunal may deem fit. They also claim costs of the proceedings. We note at the outset that while the application is indeed chiefly about the Respondent's non-compliance with the orders or judgments of its own Courts of law, it also raises the issue whether section 5 (2) of the State Liability Act of the Respondent, is compatible with the obligations of the Respondent under the Treaty in so far as it immunises the Respondent from enforcement of judgment debts against it, thereby removing any incentive for it to comply with the orders of the Court and, ultimately, the observance of the rule of law. Section 5 (2), in the relevant part, reads: "Subject to this section, no execution, or attachment, or process in the nature thereof shall be issued against the defendant or respondent in any action or proceedings... against any property of the State, but the nominal defendant or respondent may cause to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund such sum of money as may, by a judgment or order of the court, be awarded to the plaintiff, the applicant or petitioner, as the case may be." Such are the facts before us to which we must now apply the law. We must also mention here that the Respondent has left default and not opposed the application on the merits. As held by this Tribunal in Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd v The Republic of Zimbabwe (SADC (T) Case No 2 of 2007, Article 4 (c) of the Treaty obliges Member States of SADC to respect principles of "human rights, democracy and the rule of law" and to undertake in terms of Article 6 (1) of the Treaty "to refrain from 2