PART A: Background to the African Regional Human Rights System applicants the right to effective remedy. The Tribunal held that the provision in question violated Articles 4(c) and 6(1) of the SADC Treaty, as the concept of rule of law protected by the Treaty covers right to effective remedy, and therefore failure to provide effective remedy to the applicants amounted to breach of state’s obligation to uphold human rights principles and rule of law. In its judgement the Tribunal referred to jurisprudence on the right to effective remedy developed by the European Court of Human Rights,151 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,152 the African Commission,153 the Constitutional Court of South Africa154 and The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 18 on Non-Discrimination.155 Although the court upheld the applicants’ claim, awarding damages of nearly US $17 million to the victims, Zimbabwean government refused to abide by the judgement. In United Republic of Tanzania v. Cimexpan (Mauritius) Ltd, Cimexpan (Zanzibar) Ltd & AjayeJogoo,156 a case concerning treatment of a Mauritian national during his deportation, the Tribunal relied on Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture in its definition of torture and reaffirmed that international legal norms were more than just a point of reference in its jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the court denied jurisdiction to issue a preliminary ruling on legality of deportation order due to lack of locus standi (the right or capacity to bring a legal action), as the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies and his inability to substantiate the claim that he had been subject to torture by any evidence. The court held that despite the fact the applicant was deported, he could have accessed national courts and challenged deportation order in his absence through his legal representatives.157 151 ECHR, Ramirez Sanchez v. France, App. No. 59450/00 (4 July 2006). 152 Advisory Opinion OC-9-87, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-American Court of H.R (6 October 1987). 153 ACHPR, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Zimbabwe, Comm. No. 294/04, 43rd Ordinary Session (22 May 2008). 154 Constitutional Court of South Africa, Nyathi v. MEC for Department of Health, Gauteng and Another Case, CCT 19/07, ZACC 8 (2 June 2008). 155 HRC, General Comment No. 18 on Non-Discrimination, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 26 (1994). 156 SADCT, United Republic of Tanzania v. Cimexpan (Mauritius) LTD and Others, Case No. SADC (T) 01/2009 (11 June 2010). 157 Ibid. p. 6. 43