Judgment No. CCZ 4/18 25 Case No. CCZ 3/18 The applicants argue that Zimbabwe is bound to implement the findings of the African Commission. However, the country has not domesticated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the manner outlined in s 327(2). This section has to be read in light of s 46 of the Constitution which provides 3:“46 Interpretation of Chapter 4 (1) (2) When interpreting this Chapter, a court, tribunal, forum or body— (a) must give full effect to the rights and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter; (b) must promote the values and principles that underlie a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, and in particular, the values and principles set out in s 3; (c) must take into account international law and all treaties and conventions to which Zimbabwe is a party; (d) must pay due regard to all the provisions of this Constitution, in particular the principles and objectives set out in Chapter 2; and (e) may consider relevant foreign law; in addition to considering all other relevant factors that are to be taken into account in the interpretation of a Constitution. When interpreting an enactment, and when developing the common law and customary law, every court, tribunal, forum or body must promote and be guided by the spirit and objectives of this Chapter.” Zimbabwe is a dualist state as evidenced by ss 327 (2) and 34 of the Constitution which exhorts the State to ensure incorporation into our domestic law of all international conventions and treaties to which Zimbabwe is a party. The African Charter is not a selfexecuting treaty and as such, it has to be specifically incorporated into Zimbabwean law, that is, the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This, I find, reinforces the respondents’ argument that the solution to the applicants’ problem in casu lies in them lobbying the Government to amend the Constitution, including domestication of relevant treaties and conventions, so that it allows the diaspora vote. The relevance of this course of action is highlighted in the case of Foster & Elam v. Neilson 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, (1829) at 314 where MARSHAL CJ had this to say: 3 Although, the African Chapter has not been incorporated into our law through an Act of Parliament, many of its substantive provisions accord with the righty and freedom guaranteed in our Constitution. These however, do not include any provision addressing the issue of the diaspora vote.