had several stakeholders. Rio Zim communicated that it had an open-door policy to explain to residents how they were conducting the process. Letters of notice of eviction were delivered to residents who were going to be affected. The ZHRC did not find any violation of freedom from arbitrary eviction. The houses complained about were company houses whose occupation was conditional upon one being an employee of the owner of the Mine. The complainants were being offered alternative land in Turquoise and Delsea Farms as a Government initiative to cushion them from homelessness. The fact that Rio Zim was engaging and gave notices through working with all stakeholders demonstrated the company’s intention to respect human dignity in its processes. The investigation did not find any evidence of arbitrary eviction. 8.3 Whether the right to administrative justice was violated Speaking to all those in authority, at all relevant times, it appeared engagements were done and information was relayed to the complainants. However, the political environment and differences in the community were the cause of misinterpretation of any action that was done or brought to the community. For example, complainants were aware of the evictions, and the acquisition of the mine but they were just not happy with the process of evictions. There was no substantiated claim that the initial process of serving notices of evictions was done unreasonably, impartially, or in a substantively and procedurally unfair manner. 9. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the COMPLAINANTS should 9.1. Exercise political tolerance and not exclude themselves from development programs that come to the area. 9.2. Continue speaking out for their rights and report cases of human rights violations. 9.3. Those affected by evictions to take up the offers and register their names for alternative land being offered by the Government through the District Administrators Office. 11