I I ACHPR I I African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility I Zimbabwe." The Complainant refers! to the Commission's decision in Union Inter Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Rencont~e Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Organisation Nationale des Droits de dHomme au Senegal and Association Malienne des Droits de l'Homme v tAngOla, where the Commission underscored the fact that:36 A government action ... directed at specific ational, racial, ethnic or religious group is generally qualified as discriminatory ... ThJ Commission concedes that African States in general. .. are faced with many challenges, mainly economic, and in the face of such difficulties, States often resort to radical measures ... whatever the circumstances may be, such measures should not be taken at the detriment pfthe, enjoyment of human rights. ' ,,/;< " ."« '. : .. ',~ 87. The Complainant submits that in the present ca~Edt,<;:ann0t_Q~ argued that the expropriation of the Victim's ass~,tJw~~:~wptivat~~~by~coiiSJdefations other than race, as he acquired CJJ~(B~is as's~t~;\aftei'<~imbabwEt gained ""~'···'1·", c",'w ' independence and was not a b~J,1e£icia,X~i",of tQ~ historical-annexation of ',~ : I <'1 :;;::;,(t'I;-' , :/;:1~')' '. land by the British settlers il1(18Ql. e1;:!,~"QJ,'ri.plainant therefore submits t"A~:~~:'~~_' _ ./ that the targeting of the/yictiih:~;B1}, accolillitli,.,pfhis race constitutes a violation of the spirit of A~#cle 2 of th~;.Nrican< ., t .r. 'J, "';"""~h::> ,;;,,::;' Alleged violation of ~U~If: 3 ofJhe,,8frican'qhart~t'· _,¢r ~..,-~~,'~--:"~ ~'" "'~<~'~l\, , 88. The complain~~ 'SUb::~ that:t~ii'.rLusaf of the Respondent State to respect court o~~~rs issued in f~vourl0t the Victim points to deliberate efforts by State ':~ig§ntsto deny tl,1eVictim of the protection of law. The Complainant avet~J*p§ltthe Victi,!p puJsue~ all available legal channels to '. . ,";<':,x, " ",~~ , ' I ! protect '~is family, rt£h;?~f:o/s;;f\P'd employees from the State sanctioned attack, \~:r:cLjvas.t?ranted;';ria~less thad six (6) orders in his favour. The Com?laina,nt av.et~·':~h~tthese orders cpnfirmed. the Victim's. right to stay on hIS farm.r.not to be, assaulted, harassed or interfered WIth, however, these were all defied by the Respondent State with impunity. :y~. '<' , I --------~.!~, ..---- I The Complainant indicates in its complaint that onl12 June 2003, President Mugabe delivered a speech on ZTV at Nyalcomba Irrigation Scheme in N)janga, during which he stated: "these Bennetts and the De Klerks, are not deserving cases in regards to allocation of land, because they are destabilizing our society, they are for illegality; they ar~ supporting a party in its program of pursuing an illegal course of power. All those who are wOfking in this illegal way, in this manner of destabilizing our society, do not deserve a portion of our land at all. If they have it, if they have that land, that land will be taken from them and given to more loyal citizens, so I don't want to h~lfa:t~. there is a Bennett, that there is a De Klerk who contin~es to destabilize our wellbeing, th~,e" from here." I .f:j-0",;§:,c 36 Communication 159/96 - Union Inter Africaine des DroUs de l'Homme, Federation ,,;mati al~... des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Rencontre Africaine des Droits de l'HommeJrg~gan satii~~' Nationale des Droits de l'Homme au Senegal and AS1'SOciatiOnMalienne des Droits ~~l'lj, m~.:;1 Angola paras 15 and 16. \~~ ~ t>-IJ.IJt>35 '{iiuStlq:~~~IyD~ , ",,;,.6- I ~ Pa' .,19 ~tE "'b (It. ~~ ~o-<>' " ~ \ I).l ~ §i ~ en ~~C) "',,/ RICp..\~~<;) :0q ,?<G. OMME ET oeS • r,,;.~ ~ ~ .!f 'I