as voters. Based on the finding of the audit, the organisation and indeed its advocates, engaged the Respondent which expressed willingness to dialogue for purposes of making the electoral process accessible to person with disabilities. It also undertook to consider introducing the Braille template used in some SADC countries to enable blind persons vote unaided during elections. The evidence ended by highlighting the correspondence passing between the Respondent and Petitioner's advocates and the meetings held by the two. th th The Petition came up for hearing on the 13 and 14 September, 2011. The parties presented a witness, each, that is PW and DW, respectively. PW was Wamundila Waliubuya, the Human Rights Manager for the orgainsation. His evidence-in-chief began by highlighting his functions in the orgainsation. These he stated included; planning human rights activities for the disabled; receiving complaints on human rights violations against the disabled and resolving disputes connected thereto; defending rights of person with disabilities; and managing financial and other resources on behalf of the disabled. The witness proceeded to state what entity the organisation is, its functions and who its members are. He went on to highlight how the orgainsation had engaged the Respondent for purposes of conducting audits at various stations. Following receipt of the Respondent's consent, audits were conducted at various stations and a report compiled and forwarded to the Respondent. The report he stated, highlighted flaws in the facilities offered at the stations which formed the basis of the Petitioner's claim. These he stated were as follows; the tables used by the registration officers were high so they were not accessible by persons with disabilities; registration tables were placed in positions which were inaccessible as they were either on stages, platforms or the first floor of the buildings used; some stations were located in class rooms, churches, and rooms which had very narrow door ways which are not accessible by persons on wheelchairs; the toilets in the buildings were not appropriate because of the size of the entrance. In certain instances there were stairs leading to the toilets, while in others, toilet pans were not accessible, and in other instances the toilets were pit latrines; the registration officers were not able to use sign language so there was no direct communication with persons with hearing disabilities; some offices were located far from the entrance to the centre, which entailed long walks to get to the office, in paths that had either ditches or portholes and could therefore not be easily accessed by the disabled; and there were no facilities for the blind to conduct a secret ballot by use of a tactile ballot guide. The witness went on to testify that the report on these findings was submitted to the Respondent and it is produced in the affidavit verifying facts as exhibit SB6. Further that it contains recommendations on how the Respondent can remedy the situation. These recommendations, he stated were made with the full knowledge that the Respondent does not own the buildings and premises that the registration of voters was conducted from. He ended his testimony by stating that he is a registered voter, but is discouraged from voting as he will not be able to exercise a secret ballot because he will be assisted by another person in casting his vote. Under cross examination, PW stated that the premises used as stations are not owned by the Respondent but various entities such as churches, government and private schools. He went on to state that the said premises were constructed as such, without facilities for the disabled, but that the Respondent had an obligation to select and gazette premises that were accessible to the disabled. He stated further, in this respect, that all schools constructed in and after the year 2008, had facilities which catered for persons with disabilities. PW went on to testify that he and other members of the organisation who went to register as voters were not turned away by the Respondent's offices but they were all assisted in registering as voters. He stated further that