building measures” was reached on solving the Zimbabwe crisis. The terms of this agreement were very clear, and accepted by the Zimbabwe Government. Although there was a strong focus upon land as a major aspect of the Zimbabwe crisis, the Abuja Agreement nonetheless covered most aspects of the crisis. It committed the Zimbabwe Government to the following: • • • • to “take firm action against violence and intimidation” ; to comply with the standards contained in the Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme ; to observe human rights, the rule of law, transparency and democratic principles; to take a series of confidence-building measures that will lead to immediate and observable changes in the domestic situation. This process was in accordance with paragraphs 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii) of the Commonwealth Action Programme. The Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme provide clear parameters for assessing the human rights observance of any Commonwealth country. The Abuja Agreement made explicit reference to these standards, and it is abundantly clear that the gross human rights violations in Zimbabwe, especially in pursuit of electoral dominance, struck at the heart of the Commonwealth’s democratic principles. In addition and in accordance with this, the Commonwealth Action Programme (CMAG) exercised its oversight role as mandated. In all there were eight relevant meetings of CMAG that dealt with Zimbabwe, prior to Zimbabwe’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and the statements from these meetings are an important chronicle of the attitudes of the Commonwealth to the Zimbabwe crisis. CMAG’s records show increasing concern about the deteriorating situation. Amongst these were records expressing: • • • • • • concern that problems continue especially in relation to recent reports of the intimidation of the judiciary and the media; deep concern about the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe especially the violence, occupation of property, actions against the freedom and independence of the media and political intimidation; concern about serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law; deep concern over the continued violence, political intimidation and actions against the freedom and independence of the media; condemnation of the recently enacted Public Order and Security Act and the General Laws Amendment Act, as well as the proposed Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, as further direct curbs on the freedom of speech, of the press, and association in Zimbabwe and contrary to the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values as enshrined in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration; strongest concern about a statement by the Zimbabwe Defense Forces Chiefs that they would not recognize a president who did not have liberation war credentials and that recent and foreshadowed legislation constituted a direct threat to the conduct of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. It is instructive that these were exactly the same concerns expressed by opposition political 6