ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights r..: Human Rights our Collective Responsibility :.: membership. The Respondent State 90ntends that the situation would have been different had Parliament been Idissolved, as this would have been done in terms of section 63 of thJ former Constitution of Zimbabwe I which provides that on dissolution of ~arliament, all proceedings pending at the time shall be terminated and accordingly every bill, motion, petition or other business shall lapse. Alleged violation of Article 10, 11 and 13 of the African Charter 149. The Respondent State denies that tJeI Victim was targeted as alleged. It contends that during the period in issue ther a revolution and landless people were occupying farms ~t their,." Ins,,~)).ceas previously alluded to. Thus, the Victim's farm ras Tr?" ,gete~i9f~r his .being a member of MDC, as all other farms ,ere being '" ~'l1R!~~':!p,fJ_l1dmg> land belonging to indige~ous Zimbabwe~,~~;Tthe::R~sP'~~~'~ft";Sta.te£:"tijetefore contends that the actions of the occupiers cannot.be Imp1;1te.p on the State. > Alleged violation of Article 14 ofJhi,,,vril;nleh":er 150. The Respondent sup~ts "'~'f' ~j;lrU;~'~d~ J? 14 of the African Charter guarantees t~E{rigl;lt prop~~t¥!'it mustjj~ noted that this right may only be encr9s¢h~;d upon" in the interest, of public need or in the general interest.of.the c'dinmunity\~nd in accordance with the provisions of the laws. ,~' ," \~;?\ tha:' 'j. '" ' ;:' 151.. The Respon(i'~~~:'i?tate asserts i~f.at:tfe exp:o~riation was in accordance WIth\~b~~ laws of tfr~l~t~teand w8,;.~ In the public Interest due to the need for ~~::~:t~!il~; ;e~:~;~::;;o~:!:~trr~~e~: ;:da~~~::ta~~ property': rights, regime, .to promote I economic growth through wider equity and efficiency gains from land rjdistribution. I 152. The Respondent therefore submits tp.at public purpose is considered by international law to be of such overriding importance that it is allowed to derogate from the principle of respect of private rights. As such, the Respondent State contends that the expropriation was for a public purpose which overrides the interests of the individual. I Alleged violation of Article 18 of the Mriban Charter 153. /",~-~~~", ' o~ C"E.1ARI,I'q, <} ~<;;; I ,0'\:, ~o'\' The Respondent State denies the Complainant's assertion thJihe ~ ~~ is liable for action of non-Stateactors .Jvhoinvaded the Viclirn';1§ar l~ ~ ~. and held his wife hostage. . ~\~ '6 ~'A~ ~"~ ~ AU- {<;- I e:,Q ~ s:tfJ 'I c- <1>0'Y 4~·RICP.\~'C.'0"" ",~ l,., !, Page 8 ~t ~=u' A Ito . ~~~/;r ~~ 4' f