Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe, the Commission posed a series of questions which serve as guides in determining the necessity of a restriction, specifically, “Are there sufficient reasons to justify the action? Is there a less restrictive solution? Does the action destroy the essence of the rights guaranteed by the African Charter?” 34 95. In this particular instance, the Complainant argues that the restrictions applied by the Respondent State have gone beyond limiting the right to entirely taking away the right itself, and thereby disenfranchising non-residents. The Respondent State on the other hand contends that non-residents are still able to vote if they travel back to Zimbabwe and register in their relevant constituencies. The Respondent State submits that Zimbabwe’s electoral system is based on constituencies and that there are no recognized constituencies outside of Zimbabwe. 96. In a case before it on the very matter of a residency requirement on the right to vote, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe observed the following regarding its domestic processes: …the starting point is an election due to be held in a given constituency. Next is the person who is registered on the voters’ roll of that constituency. Then follows the question of whether or not, on the day of voting, such voter is physically present not only in Zimbabwe, but within the constituency in order to cast his vote. Only if he is absent from the country will he be able to cast his vote by post. However, such a person’s absence must be attributable to a call of duty in the service of the State or being the spouse of such a person”. 35 97. The Commission observes that the Complainant has not challenged the assertion of the Respondent State that the Victims would have been able to vote if they had travelled back to their respective constituencies, instead, the Complainant responds that the requirement to travel back is itself discriminatory, as the same is not expected of persons in government service or their spouses. The Commission notes that as per Section 23 (3) of the Electoral Act, where a person has ceased to reside in a constituency for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, he or she may no longer be retained in the voters roll. In such instances, the person would have to re-register in order to vote, which was presumably the situation of the Victims at the time of the referendum. The Commission therefore Communication 284/03 – Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Republic of Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR, para 176 35 Gabriel Shumba, Sibonile Mfumisi, Darlington Nyambiya v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, The Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, The Minister of Foreign Affairs, The Minister of Finance and Economic Development, The Attorney General of Zimbabwe (2018) Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe Judgement (No. CCZ 4/18, Case No. CCZ 3/18) page 18 34 24