4
Paragraph 59 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights, which was ratified by all 183 Member
States of the United Nations, states the need for assistance to victims of torture, as well the need for effective remedies for
their physical, psychological and social rehabilitation. 4 Furthermore, the legal foundation for reparation and rehabilitation
has been extended in international law by a series of land mark court cases in which courts, such as the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, have held that, under international law, a duty to provide reparations attaches to every violation.5
Although it is important to consider the legal basis for reparations and rehabilitation, this might not seem so relevant to the
present discussion since the War Victims Compensation Act by virtue of its existence concedes that there is need for
compensation. What is not so clear in the Act, however, are the intended beneficiaries of this legislation, and hence it
remains important nonetheless to consider the international position regarding torture survivors. The legal basis for making
reparative awards to torture survivors is well-discussed by Lillich and Lutz (Lillich.1993; Lutz.1989), to whom the interested
reader may be referred.
Human rights violations
Torture is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of Zimbabwe, under the section dealing with Protection from Inhuman
Treatment, but there is no mention of the matters of reparation or rehabilitation. Reparation for torture is specifically
guaranteed in the UN Convention Against Torture, which, unfortunately, Zimbabwe has yet to sign or ratify. This
Convention, signed by over 72 member states of the United Nations, states clearly in Article 14, that “each State Party shall
ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible”. Furthermore, “in the event of death of the victim
as a result of his torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation”. Thus, the UN Convention deals expressly with
both the issues of compensation and rehabilitation.
However, as serious a violation of human rights as torture is, it is only one of the forms of human rights violation that can be
considered as worthy of some form of reparation. As Lutz (1989) has pointed out, the forms of gross human rights violations
are still very much under discussion in different parts of the world, with torture, disappearances, detention and summary
executions all currently receiving the attention of human rights tribunals and commissions. However, a short list can be
compiled, using criteria from the United States of America.6 This list would include the following:
(a) genocide;
(b) slavery or slave trade;
(c) murder or disappearance of individuals;
(d) torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(e) prolonged, arbitrary detention
(f) systematic racial discrimination;
(g) consistent patterns of gross violations of internationally protected human rights.
4
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Convention on the Elimination on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. Paragraph 59 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights.
See Lillich (19993), “Damages for Gross Violations of International Human Rights Awarded by US Courts”, Human Rights Quarterly, 15, 207-229;
Lutz (1989), “After the Elections: Compensating Victims of Human Rights Abuses”, in E.L. Lutz, H.Hannam, & K.J.Burke, (eds), “New Directions in
Human Rights”, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
6 See Restatement(Revised) Foreign Relations Law of the Unites States, Sec.703.Comment C.
5