(2005) which makes provision for absentee voting through post available only to Zimbabweans working in government service, violates the Victims’ rights protected under Article 13(1) of the African Charter and other international human rights instruments. Respondent State’s submissions on the Merits 58. The Respondent State argues that Article 25 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides for the right of every citizen to participate in the political affairs of their country without any distinctions, only state race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property or birth as prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Respondent State also notes that residency does not form part of these discriminatory distinctions nor is it included in the list of unlawful distinctions contained in Article 2 of the African Charter, which the Respondent State is alleged to have violated. 59. The Respondent State further submits that Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) establishes a general principle of equality, and avers that Article 2 of the African Charter expands the meaning established in the UDHR by providing some of the grounds for non-discrimination, such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status. 60. The Respondent State avers that reasonable restrictions do not amount to discrimination, noting that the ICCPR enshrines the right to vote as a fundamental human right, however Article 25 of the ICCPR allows for reasonable restrictions on the right to vote, and accordingly, the African Charter should be interpreted in the same spirit. 61. The Respondent State also submits that the cost of organising external voting; the fact that Zimbabweans abroad are not affected by the political decisions taken in Zimbabwe; and that Zimbabweans abroad cannot cast a meaningful vote due to their lack of knowledge of the political reality on ground, are justifications for restricting external voting. The Respondent State adds that external voting can also be restricted based on the strength of non-resident citizens’ stake in the outcome of the elections. 62. The Respondent State contends that except for military personnel or other specially designated groups of people such as diplomats, external voting has not been historically extended to non-resident citizens worldwide. In the case of Zimbabwe, the Respondent State argues that non-resident Zimbabweans who 12