AC African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Alleged violation of Article 2 of the African Charter I 165. Article 2 of the African Charter pro~ides that: Every individual shall be entitled to tfe e~joyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, I language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortuJ' birth or other status. 166. The Complainant specifically ar es that the Victim's rights with respect to Article 2 of the African Char~er has been violated on the basis of race, colour, and political opinion. As froof of thi~ all~gation, reference is made to a speech aired on ZTV, delivered by ..•...•. .•....••••.' t Mugabe I .. . '•.. at the Nyakomba Irrigation Scheme in in " the Victim's property was specifically mentioned fo~ further argues that the Victim was made ~o in paragraphs 7 to 11 above, jointly bee as his political affiliation. I 167. In response to this allegation~th~. Respo , ',ent State ga . a narrative of , " ".. I "'"1 t~e inequitable di.stribut.}~h of .lai:l,9!I,;;~here . .~lack pop~la~ion in ZImb~bwe were dIsad~al):~~~.edI~ I".¥~~~.of th ,[tes, ne~~s~Itatmg the establishment of a n w lart<;t,'Bolley; to 'a;11qyv fo, the acquisition of land from t~ose. who.,~~ . "Rredb~l~~ntlt ~hi{~~!l'imd restore to those who were histbnCall~tsadvantaged ~Pl~~~:mantly black). 168. The Respondent State argues"tthat}tFfeseizure of the Victim's farm was not discriminat6~:~t .but a lawfJ!1 adion: carried out on the basis of I ConsttmtJonal Am ent (N 17) Act of 2005. The Respondent State dissod~t ,itSelf from ,. ns of I~ho~e who allegedly invaded the Victim' J;;'fa~ih.:iii~d;,~~d assaulted h~s Fife and employees, and. submits that the 11)ya~lOnsw:%t'x;\heVera pollcr but a spontaneous reaction from landless people. It avers that this was as a result of the draft Constitution rejection demonstrations which were nbt instructed, directed or controlled » ,.~ I by the State nor' were the acts perpetuated condoned by it. 169. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rig~ts &' Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on Behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Zimbabwe, the Commission defined discrimination I as:47 " .any act which aims at distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based of. any ground such as race~cok>:tt.~~. sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, n~~~AG~~\. social origin, property, birth or other status, and ~.~ . ~~" .!~ D (~ Communication 294/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Hum an Rights & Institute for " U an igh~ Development in Africa (on Behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Zimbabwe para 91~ ':? '6 p.u-uf>. l ~ 0 <:{ \; c!- ~_ ~"'~ 'Q'..s:"I· P . e..tUJ,v> ~ . t: g {i- . 9 ,;; 0 G? II! <:)<i.I?0 r p.,\~'<.-.;:,q_ "~-.:: JtOMME ET o~s ~",-:;,~ Q~ ~ (/)~p..~ 47