Search results

The right of individuals to have recourse to international human rights bodies has been regarded as one of the most significant developments in securing respect for and the promotion of universal fundamental rights and freedoms.1First, it ensures that individuals subjected to human rights violations have an alternative forum should the domestic judicial forums not be persuaded of the existence of rights violations, for whatever reason. Secondly, the availability of an individual's right of recourse affirms the fact that the individual is an actor cognisable by international law, and is not dependent on the intervention of other States for the safeguarding of his or her rights.2This is particularly important, as many States are slow to engage complaint mechanisms against another State for fear of reprisal (be it in the form of economic or political sanctions, or the instigation of a complaint under the same mechanism by the other state), lack of interest, or otherwise.3Thirdly, the existence of suchfora, and the right of individual complaint from a variety of countries, are useful in developing a common universal standard of human rights observance.4The combined result of these is that implementation of the goals set out in the international human rights instruments is facilitated because the means for their enforcement are not dependent upon international politics but rather are put in the hands of the rights holders. In turn, such machinery should improve State compliance.5

An overall penetration rate of 1.4 main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants,1a waiting period of 14 years for new connections, closure of the waiting list because the number of applicants was too great, a telephone call completion rate of less than 30 per cent,2obsolete equipment, chronic breakdown problems combined with a substandard fault clearance rate; these were some of the features of the "delinquent service" provided by Zimbabwe's State-owned telecommunications monopoly, the Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (PTC). InRetrofit (Pvt) Ltdv.Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (Attorney-General intervening)3the question which faced the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe was whether the PTC's statutory monopoly, seen in the context of a system which the PTC itself had conceded was "markedly inadequate to meet the present communication needs of the population",4was an unjustifiable hindrance on the right to free expression.