a) The councillor pointed out that the mine was in the habit of engaging in secret meetings with people, who were vocal and who asserted their rights. b) He pointed out that the management at the mine were insincere to the plight of the community and were not keen on practising corporate social responsibility and taking remedial action such as rebuilding the cracked and damaged houses. 4.3. Participant observation 4.3.1. This was used to gain intimate familiarity with the community and their activities through intensive involvement with people in their environment. The ZHRC went into 10 homes of some of the complainants in order to assess the extent of the alleged damage of the cracked houses. Using observations helped the Commission to comprehend the intensity of the level of damages and the prevalence of dust pollution. 4.4. Inspection in loco (On-site inspection) The ZHRC visited the vicinity of the mine, nearly 500 meters from the blasting site to assess the intensity of the blasts and dust pollution. 5. Respondent’s submissions 5.1. In a letter of response written to the ZHRC on the 27th of January 2017, the respondent averred that it commenced its mining operations in 2004 and since inception, the company had established systems and programmes that monitor the environmental impact of all its activities within the surrounding community and environment. 5.2. The results of the programmes have shown that there has never been a significant dust impact on the neighboring community from the mine operations. More so, all the activities were carried out within the Page 6 of 15