Judgment No. CCZ 9/14 11 Const. Application No. CCZ 276/12 so primarily because Mukandi could not be located. The reason proffered by the State is that it was not prudent to try the other three applicants in the absence of Mukandi due to the nature of the evidence that it had to adduce. As a result, even though they were available for trial, the other three applicants were not summoned for trial until September 2011. Further, in view of the relationship between the government of Canada and the government of Zimbabwe efforts to have him repatriated to this country were largely unsuccessful leaving the trial in limbo. There is no dispute Mukandi was at liberty to relocate following the court’s refusal to keep the applicants on remand and that no restrictive conditions were placed either on him or the other applicants. Indeed he was then resident in Canada and the e-mails submitted by the applicants show that there was communication between the State and the Canadian authorities from December 2002 up until 2007, in which requests were made by the State for Mukandi to be extradited, but this was futile as there was little or no co-operation from the latter. Consequently, the decision was made not to proceed even against those applicants who were in the country. It is common cause that Mukandi was not extradited but was deported to this country in 2011 for reasons not related to the allegations that were pending against him and his co-accused. Once the State was ready to proceed with the trial, attempts were made to have Mukandi extradited from Canada as is evident from the communication between Interpol Canada and Harare Interpol. Whilst the communication appears not to have had a sense of urgency, it can be accepted that the State exhibited the desire to have Mukandi brought to this jurisdiction for trial.