The third issue is general principles of international law, which permit states to derogate the exercise of rights, and international law provides exceptional grounds under which forced evictions are permitted. The Government of Zimbabwe has attempted to argue some of these grounds in the rhetoric that has dominated the operation viz: it was fighting criminality; public health was at stake; public morality citing mostly prostitution also linked to the spread of HIV/AIDS was consistently invoked; and the rights of others, e.g. that registered shop owners in the central business district were having their rights infringed by hawkers blocking their shop entrances. The fourth and final issue relates to whether there was criminal intent (mens rea) to cause harm and suffering. In a report to ECOSOC in 1996[5], the Government had brought to the attention of the international community that it was faced with housing crisis problems, that the country was also experiencing economic hardships due to ESAP and that it would not be able to meet its obligations without international support, which it did not get.142 In criminal law this means that this presents a defence of the absence of mens rea.143 In other words, there has been a housing crisis that the government had brought to the attention of the world 10 years ago. In any case only a court can determine and decide the issue of criminal intent. While the Government clearly violated its own national laws and the constitutional rights of its people, and that those responsible must be brought to account, it is the view of the Special Envoy that in view of this preliminary legal opinion, an international debate on whether the Statute of Rome could be successfully invoked is bound to be acrimonious and protracted. It would serve only to distract the attention of the international community from focusing on the humanitarian crisis facing the displaced who need immediate assistance144. Nevertheless, it remains the strong recommendation of the Special Envoy that the culprits who have caused this man-made disaster are best handled and brought to book under Zimbabwean national laws. The international community would then continue to be engaged with the dismal human rights record in Zimbabwe in consensus building political forums such as the UN High Commission for Human Rights, or its successor, the African Union Peer Review Mechanism, and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). 6.8 Conclusions and Recommendations: The legal context for Operation Restore Order should be seen against a background of a general deterioration of the rule of law in Zimbabwe. Disregard for laws and court orders during the Fast Track land reform programme set a bad precedent. It also sent a signal that the rule of law could be subject to selective interpretation, paving way for the excesses now committed under the 142 See Zimbabwe 1995 Report to ECOSOC on it progress in implementing the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/1990/5/Add.28 143 In addition the absence of a well laid out plan for the operation would support this defence. Special Envoy made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain a plan for the operation from the Minister of Local Government 144 Under such a scenario, the Government of Zimbabwe might even be more belligerent as some officials repeatedly point out there is nothing to lose as the country is already being treated as pariah state because of its land reform programme. For those Zimbabweans who have now put their faith and trust in the UN and the international community, protracted wrangling and negotiations under Rome Statute would prove the international community after all, only cared about humiliating President Mugabe instead of offering tangible assistance. 66