The locus classicus on sentencing of juveniles is now S v Chokuramba, Justice for Children’s Trust Intervening as Amicus Curiae Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights Intervening as Amicus Curiae CCZ 10-19. The Constitutional Court stated as follows: offences and accept their responsibility. That programme is, however, not supported by legislation, and is implemented through a Department in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. The objectives of the PreTrial Diversion Programme are: “The kinds of punishment a court may impose on a juvenile offender convicted of a crime are set out in s 336 of the [Criminal Procedure and Evidence] Act. The section provides that a court may impose on a person convicted of an offence a sentence of imprisonment for a determinate period, a fine, community service, or recognizance with conditions. The provisions of the CRC and other relevant international instruments contain the principles which a court is required to consider and enforce in the assessment of an appropriate sentence to be imposed on a juvenile offender convicted of a crime. The application of the principles ensures that the sentence or disposition order is appropriate in respect of its proportionality to the circumstances of the juvenile offender, the offence, and the interests of society.” a. To promote the dignity and well-being of the child, the development of his or her sense of selfworth and the ability to contribute positively to the society; When dealing with children in conflict with the law, courts are encouraged to prioritize rehabilitation as opposed to retribution. It was held in the case of S v Chokuramba, that “to determine an appropriate sentence, the court has to be innovative and preventative….” It is therefore important to note that when it comes to juvenile offenders, the traditional objectives of criminal justice, that is, repression and retribution, must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives. Priority should be given to respecting the rights of the child or young person when determining the best solution or response. A mechanism to divert children’s cases from the criminal justice system exist in the form of the Pre-Trial Diversion programme introduced in 2009. It is aimed at children who commit minor b. To impart useful life skills and education thereby promoting the child’s right to development; c. Where appropriate, to encourage restoration, restitution or compensation to the victim, thereby bringing closure to both the victim and the offender; d. To ensure that the child understands the impact of his or her crime on others including the victim, the respective families and the community; e. To promote forgiveness of the child for the crimes committed, reconcile the child with the victim and the community and promote and support rehabilitation and reintegration of the child-offender back into the community; f. To prevent further re-offending by the child through equipping him or her with useful skills in different areas of life; and g. To prevent young offenders from receiving a criminal record early in their lives and being labelled as criminals as this may become a selffulfilling prophecy. When dealing with children in conflict with the law, courts are encouraged to prioritize rehabilitation as opposed to retribution. 36. Page 54 of the judgment. 14 ‘Hear them Cry ’ – An Analysis of State Violence Against Children During the January 2019 Protests