.~9H~'!.: " ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' fiigl]ts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility " r that avail production and developmeft opportunities to the previously disadvantaged black population. I The Respondent State submits that at the initial stage of the process, the government laid down a framework under which farms once gazetted for acquisition could be de-listed for Ivalid reasons, for example, if the farms were plantations, farms in the large-scale production of tea, coffee, timber, citrus, sugar cane etc. Also I included were farms in Export Processing Zones. The Respondent S~ate avers that during this period almost all the farmers whose land Had been targeted for acquisition instituted legal proceedings. It was the~efore du~~~g~tB~same period that the. compla~nant ?btained th~ court or~ers. ~<2~~}\g' ~\f~~\the gover~ent notices of intention to acqUIre, and con£lrmeq:;\hISrIght to remam at Charleswood Estate. ':';~2>, " ~, 127. , "'~{':':. :'''r~ , r".~:;~'~ ,~; -" The Respondent State avers t~p.; engesi.:\~Jo,weddown the ":'~,l,:;/.,~~_ _~~ acquisition and resettlement pf,8,cess I ' pace, as",,~gl;lrtprocesses were blocking meaningful prp@l:.~,~.~,in th Reform arid Resettlement Programme. It therefore pecame<~:i1;~,~~ssary promulgate a law that promoted the goals a~cli;:~urposes r in the country. The Respondent State SUq~ItStrrfl\:!h~,rG0n~t'l!~.tJ:~~al .endment (No 17) Act of 2005 was ena5,t,ydN,t.~i,meet tllis need, as,~j:~t,}provided for compulsory acquisition of agficulturaJ land"1'Mithoilitreqc>ilrseto the courts, save for issues of comp {','sationfor improv~~~~t~~, , 128. '\'~~t~J~~~ It;' 129, The Respon State conte~s the Constitutional Amendment had ':th~effect 0 llifying ell court orders which had set aside government,J:"lotices0 to acquire. The State therefore submits tha~ alf1l9rtgh""",th~" ~nitial policy ex~l+ded farms belonging to foreign nationals .;who;:were:;pl;'qtected by BIlateral Agreements and under the Export Processing Zope, this policy cduld not be maintained due to the fact that the-number of people in need I of land had not been satisfied and in some cases'~(ld in~r~~sed. The ResI?9n~e~t State therefore contends that the compulsory acquisition was not discriminatory. I Further, the Respondent State refers to the incident of rape alluded to by the Complainant and states that the rape was never encouraged or sanctioned by the government. It refets to Article 8 of the International Law Articles on Responsibility of State~ for Internationally Wrongful Acts which stipulates that:43 I - ~UMAN 130. ,,'" o't\~ f;, '1:",,0 0'" 41\1D G~nARI4r ~~ _ " International Law Comm",ion Articles on Responsibilityof States for Internationa\(:(m ~ Acts, November 2001 Supplement No. 10 (A/56110) ILd art 8. ~\~ () ~,,,,,,. l ~ C{_ ~ AU-UA ,o~ <'"'~ ~ g} ::; r!? "~~~~U'~~ P age, , 'e, o.() ~ (I) c,¢1 ~ <:)<,f, Ii'i' ,( f.t. 0,."4~·RICP.\l'I~ ~0"'v~/' "'-::.?il1I\1E ET of.S ~ --:-::-~~' , I r