Was torture systematic? Again it would seem that the answer is unequivocal. Firstly, it is evident that the perpetrators are disproportionately drawn from groups affiliated to the ZANU PF government of Zimbabwe. The perpetrators range from formal state agents, such as the police and the army, through to militia groups, such as war veterans or the youth militia, for whom the government has publicly taken responsibility (and even pays them), and finally numerous ZANU PF party supporters, always evident during elections. There are an insignificant number of alternative perpetrators, and the MDC are only mentioned in respect of elections, and then in trivial numbers proportionately. These perpetrators are all identified by very different data sets from different organizations, and, in respect of the state agents, further confirmed by the findings of the Zimbabwean judiciary. In addition to the evidence that groups affiliated to the state have been systematically applying torture, there is also the evidence that the targets of this abuse have been overwhelmingly from one group, but not exclusively, as was evident in the review of reports prior to 2008. Commercial farmers, commercial farm workers, members of WOZA, members of the NCA, members of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions [ZCTU], students, and even ordinary citizens that are merely suspected of belonging to the MDC have all been targets for systematic abuse. But in 2008, it was the MDC that was the focus for abuse and terror. The torture and the other gross human rights violations were wholly aimed at intimidating people into either voting for ZANU PF or at the least in not voting for the MDC. The purpose of the torture was to intimidate and the intention was to effect this by fear induced through torture, and the fear would be spread throughout the nation by the victims in their families and their communities. The effectiveness of this campaign can be seen by comparing the March 2008 poll, where torture and intimidation were at the lowest frequency in any election since 2000. When fear (allied perhaps to determination) was low, the citizens of Zimbabwe voted comprehensively to defeat ZANU PF by voting for an MDC majority in the House of Assembly. And the result was a return to the tactics of 2000 and 2002, the re-emergence of terror and torture, and Robert Mugabe “winning” the Presidential runoff unopposed. ZANU PF retained political power through a crime against humanity, and rather than receiving isolation and condemnation from SADC, its “punishment” was to be brought to the negotiating table, and to end up in a government of national unity in which it remains the dominant partner. It is also highly probable that the final result will be yet another statute of impunity. If, however, the allegations of crimes against humanity are to be taken seriously, then it will require the concerted action of Zimbabwean civic groups, and the international community to challenge the de facto (and probably later de jure) impunity that protects the perpetrators and their commanders. It will also require a massive effort to comprehensively document the violations, for, despite the courageous efforts of various Zimbabwean human rights groups and civil society organizations, it is apparent that the reports to date can only give a sample of what has happened. The hard, more comprehensive work is yet to be done. Healing a nation such as Zimbabwe, with decades of trauma due to gross human rights violations and torture, will be no easy task, but breaking the silence will be a necessary first step. Page 38