A HP African Commission on Human and Peoples' Right~_ Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 1",-.,,;, The conduct of a person or group of perspns shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of that State in carrying out the conduct. I I Referencing the above provision, tli~' e R.... espondent State contends that for the conduct of a person or group of persons who are not officially "organs" of the State, to be attributable 0 the State, the person or group of persons must be acting on the instnfctions or under the direction or control of the State in carrying out the conduct. It submits that there should be evidence that such people were actually authorised and recruited by the State to do so for the attri9;~;mL, 0 be accepted in international law, which is not the case in the '" ent ,. munication. 131. I .. ' l:~leg::iO~::;:n:e=i:::t: (~u::::);;t:~~~:tu ofZimbabwe ~~~~:l~e::'o~~~~~~O~yb~~~~ .'e~~J.\~ :~i:~le,i!~::c~v:. Courts of the Respondent St~!e and were in his favour. The Res dent St the Victim to pursue the,eNor , not raised any allegation-ofob same. .1" '>~";! ned tHe:V:9;flOuS court orders which ' ontendS,;tl1atdtwas incumbent on co~~£;:;rders,and that he has . lin his attempt to enforce The Respondents' State contends.thaf I ithin its jurisdiction, it is never a duty of the State toenforce court o~deis in civil proceedings but rather the duty of t1l].~.;l[ldividualji~.~l"tose favour the brder is made, through the Deputy Sherriff. ~~~~l,:;t!~: Dep1.{t~ ?~~p:if£faces I resistance, he can then enlist the services of t~~ P' .';'.!'\~;r~y for the purpose of providing security coverage, and not the phY~\t~ ~eG"~~~~of the ordef' The Respondent ~tate further contends that\;!;;) en the;!]Stateagents ref~sed to respect the said orders as alleged, the Vict~.mought to have approached the courts for remedy in the form of contempt~~J)1courtproceedings, givbn the circumstances. 133. '...'.... 115/ I I The Respondent State denies all allegations of bias raised by the Complainant, as it pertains to the proceedings of the Privileges Committee of the 4th Parliament of Zimbabwe. It avers th~t the Committee was composed of three (3) members from ZANU PF and two (2) members from the MDC, which was proportional, taking into iconsideration the Parliamentary representation at the relevant time. The Respondent State argue§4~Fu~~~". complainant before the Committee was t~~ Parliament and not On this basis, the Respondent State subtnits that members g:~~l'arl~ent belonging to ZA~U PF party wer: ~ompe~.en~to adjudicate up4~~a: att8 contempt of Parliament by the VIctIm. This It avers was the p~@.tio oftne", ~,W % p'u-ll 134. ~u~p!:T4r .',~'"t.. ~l't . ~ ,o(,o}:"\ <~~\ ~ ~\ 8 '-I. ' !S e~ ~/,0 ~0 c ,~,y 4"RICp..\~~ ~,§,/_j' '>:'" ItOMME ET o'C.~.~ ~' Il'~~.~,..~~_