Nature of violations Selective application of Zimbabwean law placed severe restrictions on speech and advocacy activity, particularly those that were or are perceived as being critical of government policy or focused on politically unpopular causes. Organizations engaged in advocacy operated within an environment that is riddled with numerous restrictions on free expression. Arrests, raids, threats, and the malicious prosecution of journalists, political activists and civil society organization operatives were prevalent. Case histories • On 11 May, two independent journalists, Vincent Kahiya and Constantine Chimakure, were arrested and charged for publishing an article which was allegedly ‘wholly or materially false with the intention to generate public hostility towards the police, the military and the prison service’. • On 5 August, four student leaders from the Zimbabwe National Students Association (ZINASU) – Clever Bere, Kudakwashe Chakabva, Archieford Mudzengi and Brian Rugodo – were arrested at the University of Zimbabwe for distributing T-shirts. They were charged with contravening the Criminal Law Code. They were released on bail on 7 August. 4.3.2 Violations of media rights and access to information Violations of conventional regional and internationally accepted media rights and means of access to information for reasons that are not in the public interest. Policy The Zimbabwe constitution promotes freedom of expression, which, however, is hampered by interference and the implementation of strict media laws. There is a private press that is independent of state control of editorial policies. The 2002 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) restricts journalism. The repeal of these strict laws was not effected by year end, despite concerted efforts by civil society organizations.* The state media retained biased reporting. Nature of violations Media regulations remained restrictive, with steep and prohibitive application and registration fees of more than US$32,000 for foreign-based media houses and US$4,000 for local journalists working for these foreign media houses. Hate speech was spewed out by the state media, regardless of policy provisions prohibiting the practice. The privately owned media was forced into selfcensorship to avoid victimization through the enforcement of AIPPA. The media landscape showed an absence of clearly spelled-out constitutional provisions that guarantee media freedom. * See ACHPR Communication 294/2004, on the Andrew Meldrum case, adopted during the 6th Extra-Ordinary Session of the ACHPR, Banjul, The Gambia, April 2009. <http://www.achpr.org/english/Decison_Communication/ Zimbabwe/Comm.294-04.pdf>. Zimbabwe Human Rights Report – 2009 17