this report, the Zimbabwe government is in violation of the ICESCR by having failed to protect food availability and access for its citizens, regardless of their political affiliation. It appears the government has knowingly misrepresented food stocks currently in the country to UN bodies, and has placed its people at risk as a result. Food deficit situations have been repeatedly abused by government on party political lines in the last four years.68 Is it ethical to forcibly return to Zimbabwe, those who have been actively denied food by their government? 2. The battle for Zimbabwean refugee rights The situation seems to be the same. There is not a significant increase in Zimbabwean applications for asylum… [Barry Gilder, Interview] To admit the scale of the crisis, of the refugee situation here, would be to admit the gravity of the situation in Zimbabwe – I feel there is a resistance to admitting just how bad things are. [Elinor Sisulu, Crisis in Zimbabwe, Johannesburg, October 2003] The perception that Zimbabweans are given ASPs only with the greatest reluctance, and are given full refugee status with even greater reluctance, was confirmed by human rights lawyers from both the Johannesburg office of Lawyers for Human Rights and the Wits Law Clinic, both of whom have represented Zimbabwean refugees in the Courts.69 For some years after human rights abuses began escalating in Zimbabwe, the South African Home Affairs refused to grant any ASPs to Zimbabweans. Although since April 2000 both Zimbabwean and international NGOs have been documenting politically motivated torture, murder, massive internal displacement and property destruction, predominantly at the hands of the Zimbabwean State and its agents,70 it was only in June 2002 that South African authorities began to recognise that Zimbabweans might flee for reasons of political persecution. Home Affairs only agreed to begin recognising Zimbabweans as asylum seekers after the Wits Law Clinic prepared a test case in June 2002, representing five Zimbabweans who had fled to South Africa. One asylum seeker was a woman who had been displaced from a commercial flower farm as a result of farm invasions, and four were school teachers who had been badly assaulted by war veterans in rural schools; all had been accused of being supporters of the MDC. On the eve of the urgent application being brought before the Court, demanding Home Affairs issue ASPs, Home Affairs settled out of court by agreeing that the five were entitled to seek asylum. This set a legal precedent, and since June 2002, around 3,000 Zimbabweans have been granted ASPs; approximately 30 have been granted full refugee status.71 The landmark decision by Home Affairs in June 2002 that Zimbabweans have a right to asylum is one reason that immigration officers in Refugee Reception Offices ask to see passports; lawyers confirmed that if those in line have passports showing they entered South Africa prior to June 2002, they are being automatically denied the right to claim ASPs, and are considered 68 AI, October 2004, op cit. References to “human rights lawyers” in this report from hereon refer to lawyers from the Johannesburg Lawyers for Human Rights and the Wits Law Clinic. 70 See appendices for a list of some reports widely available for the period from April 2000 – May 2002. 71 Refugees International, Zimbabweans in South Africa: denied access to political asylum, 14 July 2004. 69 37