72 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal in regulating use of official languages. The scope of use of official languages is not provided for in s 6(3). Neither has the Constitutional Court dealt with any matters relating to s 6(3) and international law and best practices from other states might therefore be useful in giving content to these sections. International law does not expressly clarify whether official language status guarantees use of that language.45 The use of official languages in administration, public education, public health, media, courts, business and other government activities depends on the provisions of the individual country’s constitution, legislation, policies and jurisprudence. This ranges from the language being symbolic; to defined limited use of language, to undefined use of language; to unlimited use of an official language. Implicitly, there are strong grounds that an official language should be used in government business.46 This position accords with the definition of an official language cited above. Mentzen alias Mencina v Latvia47 established that “... A language... cannot be divorced from the way it is actually used by its speakers. Consequently, by making a language its official language, the State undertakes in principle to guarantee its citizens the right to use that language... In other words, implicit in the notion of an official language is the existence of certain subjective rights for the speakers of that language.” In the same vein, De Varennes48 convincingly argues that “... there is therefore, in the absence of legislation to the contrary, at least a very strong implication that a government has an obligation to use such a language, and a corresponding individual right for citizens to use that official language.” Official language status should therefore not be symbolic but should guarantee the use of that language. According to Wenner, an official language should be used in a court of law, when communicating with government, in public notices, in government reports, documents, hearings, transcripts and other 45 For instance, in Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick v Association of Parents for Fairness in Education (1986) 1 S.C.R. 549 (Canada) para 59 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the recognition of the status of official languages for French and English at the federal level under Article 16 of the Canadian Constitution did not guarantee as such a right to any type of service or use in either official language. 46 F de Varennes‘Draft report on international and comparative perspectives’ op cit note 32 at 10. 47 Application no. 71074/01, admissibility decision of 7 December 2004 48 F de Varennes op cit note 32 at 10.