6 Zimbabwe: No justice for the victims of forced evictions of rights protected under the Covenant, 15 and has called for legal remedies and procedures to be provided to those affected by evictions.16 During the mass evictions of Operation Murambatsvina victims were denied due process and the protection of the law. In the few cases where human rights groups helped people to obtain court orders barring evictions, these were ignored. Amnesty International and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), who have represented groups of victims, have documented several cases of failure by the authorities to respect and adhere to court orders prohibiting evictions. One such case is that of Porta Farm, where police forcibly evicted thousands of people and demolished their homes in June 2005 despite the existence of three separate court orders prohibiting such action.17 Access to courts to obtain redress for human rights violations can only be effective if the remedies granted by the court are implemented. This is clearly reflected in article 2(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Zimbabwe is a state party, which obliges states “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies where granted.” Although the police and government action at Porta Farm violated three court orders, the High Court of Zimbabwe dismissed a contempt of court action without giving a reason. The fact that the court orders prohibiting the forced evictions at Porta Farm were disregarded by the authorities and this disregard was subsequently upheld by the court itself has left the community of Porta Farm with no access to an effective remedy at law in Zimbabwe. In at least one case a court ruling on Operation Murambatsvina appeared to sanction forcible evictions and human rights violations. During Operation Murambatsvina an estimated10,000 people were forcibly evicted from Hatcliffe Extension in Harare. These people had built homes on land allocated to them by the Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and Urban Development. The justification for their forcible eviction and the demolition of their homes was that they had failed to obtain proper approval for construction of their houses. In ruling on an application filed by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights on behalf of a group of Hatcliffe victims, despite stating that the forced evictions at Hatcliffe had caused “untold suffering to a number of people”, the High Court Judge found the evictions legal. He stated that the evictees had breached the lease agreements they had entered into with the government by erecting unapproved structures and that “public policy considerations” in destroying their homes and evicting them “far outweighed the interests of a few who had contravened the law”. 18 This ruling fails to take into consideration provisions of both the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the international human rights treaties, to which Zimbabwe is a party. 15 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 3: Nature of States Parties Obligations, UN Doc. E/C.12/1991/23, para 5; and General Comment 9: The domestic application of the Covenant, UN Doc. E/C.12/1998/24, para 2. 16 General Comment No. 7, paras 12 and 16. 17 Amnesty International and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, “Zimbabwe: Shattered lives – the case of Porta Farm”, Amnesty International Index AFR 46/04/2006, 31 March 2006. 18 High Court of Zimbabwe, Harare, Dare Remusha Cooperative vs. The Minister of Local Government and Urban Development, the Chairperson of the Harare Commission, the Minister of Home Affairs, the Commissioner of Police and the Harare City Council, HC 2467/05, 1 and 2 June 2005. Amnesty International 8 September 2006 AI Index: AFR 46/005/2006