ix) Threatening, Prosecutorial language The criminalisation of the actions of people summoned to appear before the Commission has the potential of instilling fear in the victims of past injustices. Section 8(11a and b) makes use of language that criminalises some actions associated with the investigations such that it deters the victims from taking part in investigations, even as witnesses. However, given the time frame taken to deal with national peace and reconciliation issues, some evidence is likely to have been interfered with, forgotten, distorted and even destroyed. In addition, witnesses may not have to be forced to answer questions on the ground that they may incriminate themselves which is regarded as due process at law. Therefore, HZT recommends that the NPRC Bill must not criminalise actions that are before the Commission, but rather deal with actions after the investigations given the time that the violations took place. It should be clear on what constitutes true or false evidence by the commission. Any criminalisation of witnesses and complainants reduces the propensity of victims (most of whom cannot afford legal aid) to report their cases. The Bill may also need to include provisions that guarantee unconditional legal support for victims (complainants) and witnesses. x) Early Warning System Architecture The Bill, in its current form does not guarantee non-recurrence of acts of violence. This guarantee should be accompanied with violence and conflict detection mechanisms as stated in the Constitution, Section 252 (g-h. Section 252g states that the commission should “develop mechanisms for early detection of areas of potential conflicts and disputes and to take appropriate preventive measures.” Therefore, the NPRC Bill should clearly state how the Commission is going to establish an effective Early Warning System from the national to community levels. Absence of mechanisms to deal with recurring violence or violence in future is contrary to provisions of the Constitution. 3B. Considered Omissions in the NPRC Bill i) The power to initiate investigations The Bill does not in any of its text refer to processes or the power of the NPRC to initiate investigations. It is a well - known fact that some of the most egregious violations of human rights occurred in remote areas where victims might have been frustrated and threatened so much that they will afraid to take the initiative of writing to the NPRC. In this regard, it will be important for the NPRC to have such express powers to initiate investigations and take justice to victims and survivors' doorsteps. In the same vein, the NPRC should also be given express power to first enforce the publication past commissions’ reports and implementation of their recommendations; the Dumbutshena Commission and Chihambakwe Reports and the Tibaijuka report on Murambatsvina, for example. This means the Bill should oblige the Commission to not only wait to receive complaints but to investigate cases which they already know or have researched on. 8