88 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal The third relates to political mechanisms where language policy is formulated and mechanisms are put in place to monitor such policy through provision of conduits for consultation, communication, and responses involving parliament, parliamentary committees, a department within a ministry, a specific ministry devoted to this issue, the government and other political entities. There can also be mechanisms for resolving official and non-official language disputes by an institution answerable to Parliament, such as an official languages commissioner, language board, ombudsman/public protector or the human rights commission.114 Such political mechanisms are required if language rights provided for in the Constitution are to be promoted, protected and fulfilled. 5. Limitation of Language Rights in s 6 One crucial issue for discussion is whether s 6 is subject to the general limitation clause in s 86 and there are two possible approaches to this. The first approach is restrictive and strictly interprets s 6 as a provision falling outside the Bill of Rights and therefore not subject to the limitation clause that limits rights in the Bill of Rights.115 The second approach is a generous one that purposively interprets s 6 in the context of the constitutional values and other rights116 in the Bill of Rights that are inevitably used when implementing s 6. This approach sees the application of the limitation clause in s 86 to s 6.117 The limitation of rights in s 86 is essentially two-fold. First, a law of general application should limit fundamental human rights. The law of general application refers to the rule of law118 that includes 114 Unpublished: R Dunbar, ‘Minority language legislation and rights regimes: A typology of enforcement mechanisms’ unpublished paper presented at World congress on language policies, Barcelona 16-20 April 2002 3. 115 This approach was followed in the SA case of Van Rooyen v S (General Council of the Bar of South Africa Intervening) 2002 5 SA 246 (CC) [35] where the Constitutional Court held that judicial independence was outside the Bill of rights and was therefore not subject to the general limitation in section 36(1). 116 Examples include equality, non-discrimination, dignity and freedom of expression that require the application of the limitation clause. 117 See JL Pretorius ‘The Use of Official Languages Act: Diversity affirmed?’ 2013 (16)1PER /PELJ 281 282295. 118 President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo 1997 4 SA 1 (CC).