[stop] selectively curtail the full enjoyment of these rights, and [reform] the provisions contained in the Public Order and Security Act and more specifically in the Criminal Procedure Act, which occasionally have hindered the work of human rights defenders. Rescind the provision contained in Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code that can extend to seven days […] the time that security forces can keep a person detained before bringing charges”. At the regional level, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), in its 2008 Resolution on the Forthcoming Election Run-Off in Zimbabwe7, called on “the government to guarantee the protection of human rights defenders during the election process” and to “take all necessary measures to ensure that Zimbabweans exercise their right to vote in peaceful environment free of intimidation and violence”. In its 2004 Resolution on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders in Africa, the ACHPR also called on “States to promote and give full effect to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders [and to] take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders”8 – the Criminal Law Codification Act; – the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA); This Act, which targets mainly the media, has been used effectively to silence the independent media such as the now defunct, privately-owned Daily News and the Daily News on Sunday. Journalists have experienced difficulties in having their accreditation processed in terms of the requirements of the Act. AIPPA has severely restricted the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. A number of journalists from the independent media have been arrested and charged under AIPPA for offences such as the publication of falsehoods, and failure to register or accredit under the politicised and non professional body of the Media and Information Commission. – the Miscellaneous Offences Act; This Act has wide-ranging provisions that can be interpreted to formulate a charge. – the Financial Regulation Act; Despite these recommendations, the Government has not followed-up on them, and human rights defenders in Zimbabwe have continued to be harassed, intimidated and their work hampered. – the Official Secrets Act; 3. Domestic legal framework relevant for the work of human rights NGOs and human rights defenders – the Interception of Communications Act; and – the Broadcasting Services Act; – the common law offence of criminal defamation. The Constitution protects the freedoms of expression and of assembly and association [Sections 20 and 21 of the Constitution]. The Constitution protects the right to hold meetings and to demonstrate in public as part of the freedoms of expression and of assembly and association in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Articles 19 and 20] and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights [Articles 9, 10 and 11]. According to the same, these are not absolute or unqualified rights: Sections 20 and 21 of the Constitution allow Parliament to make laws limiting freedoms of expression, assembly and association “in the interests of defence, public safety, public order ” and for the purpose of protecting the rights or freedoms of other persons, as long as the laws are “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. Sections 20(6) and 21(4) go on to say that no one has a right to exercise their freedom of expression, assembly or association in or on “any road, street, lane, path, pavement, side-walk, thoroughfare or similar place which exists for the free passage of persons or vehicles”. This does not mean that all processions and demonstrations in public roads and streets can be prohibited: in 1994 the Supreme Court said that, properly construed, the sections simply state that the right to hold demonstrations and processions in public roads and streets does not give licence to interfere with or obstruct the free passage of persons or vehicles. A number of laws, including some that were adopted before independence in 1980, are still used to threaten, harass and intimidate human rights defenders, journalists, artists, members of the clergy or political opponents of ZANU-PF, particularly members of the MDC. The most relevant laws are: – the Public Order and Security Act (POSA); In 2002, the Parliament passed POSA, which makes great inroads into the rights of individuals and groups. POSA provides for the notification of the regulating authority of any intentions to hold a meeting that is “of a political nature”. The Act has stifled popular debate, be it political, academic or civic. Since its adoption, many human rights defenders have been arrested, detained and prosecuted under its provisions. 7. ACHPR Resolution, Resolution 132 on the Forthcoming Election Run-Off in Zimbabwe, May 2008. 8. ACHPR Resolution, Resolution 69 on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders in Africa, June 2004. 12 The Observatory ZIMBABWE: Ongoing risks for human rights defenders in the context of political deadlock and pre-electoral period These laws constitute blatant hindrances to the rights enshrined in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and in other instruments to which Zimbabwe is bound (see above), and are applied selectively to stifle those promoting human rights and dignity for all in Zimbabwe. At the time of the mission, a number of individuals were facing legal proceedings related to one or more of these repressive pieces of legislation. Others were in police custody or in pre-trial detention under the provisions of Section 121 of the Criminal Law Codification Act. The latter allows a prosecutor to overrule a bail order by the court, and results in continued and often arbitrary detentions. Section 121 has regularly been invoked against human rights defenders and has resulted in the abuse of the use of pre-trial detention against human rights defenders. Journalists from different media houses interviewed during the mission stated that with the advent of the GNU, they had anticipated increased freedom of the press, that would have allowed independent television stations, radio stations and newspapers to operate freely and to fully play their role in the country. However, the AIPPA law, which requires accreditation of journalists, makes it difficult for individuals to enter the profession or to practice journalism as free-lancers, since AIPPA allegedly grants licenses selectively to pro-government journalists while denying them to independent journalists. Moreover, AIPPA has also been selectively and wrongfully used to close down newspapers, some of which have remained closed to date. The selective and arbitrary application of these laws has fuelled an atmosphere of fear amongst human rights journalists, and a reform of the AIPPA in this area is therefore critical ahead of the next elections. 4. Capacity of Zimbabwean institutions and actors to offer protection to human rights defenders The institutions that would be expected to offer protection to human rights defenders in the country include the courts, lawyers, the police, prosecution authorities and the Human Rights Commission (which is not yet legally operational). The Observatory ZIMBABWE: Ongoing risks for human rights defenders in the context of political deadlock and pre-electoral period 13