Litigants and Litigators: Women HRDs 15 exhibit the decent behaviour expected of law enforcement agents in the treatment of persons in their custody. It was contented that the court was obliged to refuse to bring any criminal prosecution in the circumstances. ZLHR lawyers argued that section 15(1) of the old Constitution had an absolute prohibition against torture that protected the dignity and physical integrity of every person regardless of their conduct. The lawyers also argued that there were no exceptional circumstances (such as the seriousness of the crime, or the danger the person is believed to pose to national security) that can justify torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The court found that Mukoko had been tortured through repeated beatings on the soles of her feet with a piece of hosepipe and a metal object, was forced to kneel for a long time on mounds of gravel while being interrogated, and for prolonged periods was kept incommunicado in solitary confinement. She had also been kept blindfolded each time she was out of solitary confinement and not being interrogated. Although the judges found that ill treatment per se did not affect the validity of the decision to charge the victim with a criminal offence and institute proceedings against her, it was the use of the fruits of such ill treatment which affected the validity of the decision. The court therefore found that the infliction of torture affects an accused person’s dignity and physical integrity. The court further held there was no evidence to found a charge in the absence of information extracted as a result of the ill treatment, and so the permanent stay of prosecution was granted. Right to administrative justice and protection of the law: The Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) was taken to court in the case of Hanzi v ZINARA & 3 Ors. 23 ZINARA is the regulatory authority charged with licensing all motor vehicles in Zimbabwe. Sometime in May 2012, it decided to convert its database into a computerised system and this exercise was lengthy. ZINARA failed to license the country’s estimated 800 000 vehicles by 31 May 2012, which was also its deadline. On 31 May ZINARA announced an extension of the period – up to 30 June 2012 – in which individuals could license their vehicles. On 4 June ZINARA unilaterally and arbitrarily revoked the extension. As a result, Roselyn Hanzi was stopped and fined by the Zimbabwe Republic Police for not having displayed a valid vehicle license. The client then gave instructions to file an urgent chamber application to challenge the unilateral revocation of this extension. The contention was that the revocation violated the tenets of natural justice and the Vehicle Registration and Licensing statutes. The matter was heard before Justice Mutema in the High Court in Harare who dismissed the application. However, after the application was filed, police stopped arresting people for the failure to display their vehicle licences and advised that they resume doing so only after 30 June 2012. Right to participate in the government of the country: In July 2013 Eulitah Govo was forced to approach the Electoral Court to challenge the patriarchal thinking within some offices of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) that would prevent her from participating in elections. In the case of Govo v Zimbabwe Electoral Commission & Anor24 Govo, who was an aspiring candidate for Ward 21, Chikomba District, challenged the rejection of her nomination papers. She had visited the offices of the ZEC Chief Executive Officer of the Chikomba Rural District Council for the purpose of filing her nomination papers. When she was about to submit her papers she was advised by the nomination officer that they were rejected on 23 High Court Harare unreported case 260/2012. 24 Govo v Zimbabwe Electoral Commission & Anor Electoral Court unreported case 7/13.