24 Conclusions It does appear that the War Victims Compensation Act is not wholly satisfactory, but, at the time, was a commendable attempt to provide redress for the many victims of the gross human rights violations that had taken place during the War of Liberation. It is not partial, providing redress for both combatants and civilians, and also for victims of the abuses inflicted by both all sides to the conflict. However, the Act is a victim of its own time. In 1980, it is fair to conclude that there was a relative paucity of scientific information about the short and long-term consequences of organised violence, and hence the content of the Act could only reflect what was known at the time. In particular, the Act did not place much emphasis upon torture and other forms of organised violence, and, as we have seen above, there may be good reasons for seeing torture and organised violence as being considerably more prevalent than conventional war injuries. There is now no good reason why the Act should not be amended to reflect this later knowledge, and here the amendments can draw upon a considerable body of legal and forensic material for its guidance. For example, The United Nations Compensation Commission included a panel of experts from various fields, i.e., finance, law, accountancy, insurance, and environmental damage assessment and psychiatry.106 This UN Compensation Commission devised an ideal categorisation system for war-related injuries.107 Furthermore, there are alternative models, such as that devised by the Federal Republic of Germany, to which reference may be made in deciding upon explicit categories of consequences. In addition, there are several models for processes to handle such claims.108 The UN Commission divided the administrative process into instalments.109 It also divided themselves into a panel of three members to review claims.110 Basically, the claims would be presented to the panel in different instalments.111 The first instalment was the precedential phase of the work.112 In the precedential phase, there is a small number of claims and an individualized review of the claims.113 Also, the panel must identify and define issues that appear to be relevant to the evaluation of the claim and compensation.114 Next instalment would be the application phase.115 In the application phase, the panel reviews the recommendations made concerning those groupings.116 The panel must insure that the groupings and compensation recommendations developed in the precedential phase are proper claims.117 Unlike Zimbabwe, the UN Compensation Commission is both more intricate and clear, and is better for several reasons. The Commission’s process allows a case by case analysis that permits the panel to be flexible in those necessary situations. Zimbabwe does not have such a mechanism.118 Also, unlike Zimbabwe, the Commission establishes a safeguard against fraudulent claims.119 The UN’s system has panels to review the same claims twice but for different reasons, and the last review operates as a check on the first.120 In Zimbabwe, such a system would be desirable, but the system should also 106 supra supra 108 United Nations Compensation Commission, Report of the Panel, 6, 1996. 109 supra 110 supra 111 supra 112 supra 113 supra 114 supra 115 supra 116 supra 117 supra 118 Sec.4 , War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. 107