ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility protestations, the Victim was triedj found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 12 months in prison with harq labour. 7. The Complainant states that the trial bt th~ Parliamentary Committee was a continuation of an official policy of ~ictimisation aimed at the Victim by the Respondent State. The Complainant claims for instance that among other things, the .Victim's election Js Member of Parliament for the Chimanimani District had previouslyl brought harassment and violence directed against the Victim and hiS, fam,ily. There were also attacks allegedly made on the Victim's farm and his farm workers by persons suspected to be in the employment of the Respqnd¢~t State. The Victim I /",,""~>k " ;;~ was allegedly subjected to all forms of rtrib~~~~~ean~tt 8. The Complainant alleges further that th:,)~f~ti~ hqf~~,~~~,:~'een.th:~ t~pet of discriminatory land confiscation by ~:~spoFt'~ ent State;,,_,Tne-·<.'ZoD:!pTainant claims that although the Victim h~~:.flii4:r,chase des61~t~'P0rtion of land from the land-owning community, ~~"\', m all custotliaty rites and ~!'\ I \ / obtained a "Certificate of nO.$pr,~~~.r;t inte ,"from the Q6'vernment, the Respondent State had J,;mlawful:ly:,targe the Victim's land for confiscation. -,,' O f '<; '> ~. ":-' ,,~ .:"'; ";-. -, "">, " ...:~" ' ':~L, " \~, }"" "t • "">-'" iY' 9. According to the/~ofuRJ~inanp;~:p.ecohfis'c~tiop?lsaggravated by the fact that the Victim'~'}t~mdwa~ targ'et~a'{tf~erhejhad turned the fortune of the fa.ro: around frt~ its b~rren state"T~ejspmplainant avers further that the Victim's farm w: confiscated al~ege9~y7'aspart of Respondent State's fast track land refo rogramme, j~n sFite of court orders in his favour ~arril1J:L".:heState;::,~~:~, inte~!:ittin.gI with. t~e Victim's pro~erty. All b:~~~~~~~:4~~Z ~~!!~~!~;~~:~:~i~:.VICtim'S favour are said to have 10. The co~J~a~~ ~~:..,s·t:.rther that ij an attempt to seek protection from the law, the' ·~ictim carefully documented the incidents of violence against him, his family.and his employees. The Victim was said to have written letters of complaint to the authorities I of the Respondent State including the Minister of State Security, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Head of Agritex. These letters allegedly did Jot yield any positive results. I 11. In relation to the alleged violation in the present Communication, the Complainant alleges that the Victim/ challenged his conviction by the Parliamentary Committee but was sent to prison while his a _':[€;':l3Mxa~ , I , 2r~ N.<1tv 0..0(': , '. pending before the Supreme Court, despite the Victim's ex. ~'8.~Tt1vat I "" '<> 0 . his app~al would be com~leted befpre the. sentence is ~cu ,.'.,;' ~t\ Complamant states that this was further evidence of a ; Be-d tel1~d u.l ~ \ targeting of the Victim. ~'~ ~",,~;:I ~ -1/ ~ i~ ~ 0 (1 a: -;, \~ AU-UA ~" , ~ ~<v0Q (~. )\I.<1"RICP.\~~ '70111 ",?~ , en.l 1/ s: tZ' ~ ME ET DE ,~ r> ,,',II Y'