resulted in adverse findings against the Zimbabwe government. Beginning in 2001, local human rights organisations have ensured that the situation in Zimbabwe has remained on the agenda of the ACHPR for over a decade. At the 29th Ordinary Session in Libya, the ACHPR agreed to send a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe, and the 2002 report of that mission was highly uncomplimentary, even contradicting the assertions of the Zimbabwe government about the centrality of land in the crisis that had engulfed Zimbabwe (Human Rights Forum. 2006). The ACHPR report was finally adopted by the African Union at its summit in January 2005, and this was shortly followed in December 2005, at the 38th Ordinary Session in the Gambia, by a stiff resolution on the mass forced displacements that took place under Operation Murambatsvina. These were also dismissed by the Zimbabwe government, with the Zimbabwe government going as far as to accuse the Commission of partiality.34 Additionally, a number of individual cases were taken to the Commission, such as the torture of Gabriel Shumba, a lawyer with the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. The Zimbabwe Government could afford to dismiss the ACHPR, but not the SADC Tribunal, the court established by SADC, which did have legal powers under the SADC Treaty. Shortly after the establishment of the Tribunal, civil society made applications to the Tribunal in respect of human rights violations. Before the suspension of the SADC Tribunal in 2010, two Zimbabwean cases were heard by the Tribunal: namely, Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v. Zimbabwe, (Case No. SADC (T) 2/2007) and Barry L.T. Gondo and Others v. Zimbabwe, (Case No. SADC (T) 05/2008). Campbell argued that his rights were violated by the Government of Zimbabwe following the expropriation of his farm without any compensation. In the Gondo case, the applicants were victims of organized violence and torture who sued the Government of Zimbabwe for failure to comply with the domestic court‟s ruling to pay the applicants damages for the violence suffered. Deeply embarrassed by the judgments against it, the Zimbabwe government made strenuous efforts to have the Tribunal removed, and this was done by SADC in 2011.35 However, it was evident to the international community at large that, once again, the Zimbabwe government would avoid any move to be held accountable. Nonetheless, the human rights violations and the discriminatory practices of the Zimbabwe government had been exposed by civil society. A further creative use of foreign juridical bodies came with several initiatives using the jurisdiction of the South African courts. These again resulted in wide exposure of the human rights record of the Zimbabwe government. The most serious of these involved the invoking of South Africa‟s domestication of the Rome Statute in an application for the indictment of those responsible for the torture of MDC-T and civil society leaders in 2007. Lead by the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC), and supported by a number of amicus briefs, including a dossier on politically motivated rape by the Tides Foundation, this has finally led to the Constitutional Court ruling that there was an obligation by the South African state to 34 "What do you expect from them (ACHPR)? They are looking for money and what better way to make money than to vilify Zimbabwe….."Their resolutions are a fallacy, just as was the case with the (ACHPR) 2002 report which was full of fiction. We are not going to accept the report.” This was the comment of Tichaona Jokonya, government spokesperson, to the ACHPR resolution. (―Harare dismisses human rights abuse report as fiction‖. ZimOnline. 6 January 2006). 35 For more detail, see Matyszak, D (2011), The Dissolution of the SADC Tribunal. August 2011. Harare: Research & Advocacy Unit. 41