In March 2003, the International Bar Association urged the International Criminal Court that its first act should be directed at the alleged atrocities committed by Zimbabwe’s President, Robert Mugabe and his regime. The IBA argue, “there is already sufficient evidence to justify the investigation of allegations that Mr Mugabe has committed and continues to commit crimes against humanity.”22 NGOs at the August 2003 symposium supported efforts to facilitate international remedies for victims, and recommended that any “new government should try to make full and effective use of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”23 Efforts by Canadian political parties and legal activists to indict Mugabe on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity resulted in the filing of preliminary charges with the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Justice in November 2004. These charges are based on the testimony of more than 100 Zimbabweans about alleged rape, torture and mutilation at the hands of Zimbabwean security forces and youth militia. If the indictment were approved, Mugabe and officials of his government named in the order would be liable for arrest and extradition to Canada in any country that has an extradition agreement with Ottawa. This includes South Africa, which changed its legislation in 1996 in order to expedite extraditions to other Commonwealth country members. Truth-seeking and fact-finding Justice, and particularly retributive justice, options do not necessarily deliver the truth. For many victims and survivors, establishing the truth of what has transpired and why, often provides a foundation for closure, reconciliation and healing. There are numerous ways of establishing the truth about past human rights abuses. The most well known of these, has been the ‘truth commission’.24 There are however a range of other options, including historical commissions, commissions of inquiry (judicial and other), and fact-finding bodies — from multi-lateral institutions such as the African Union and UN (i.e. Special Rapporteurs, specific commissions and committees), international bodies such as the International Commission of Jurists, and international NGOs, such as Amnesty International. In addition, there are a range of official and unofficial domestic options that can be developed. Fact-finding bodies can operate very publicly, or in camera. In Zimbabwe, for much of the pre- and post-colonial period, truth-seeking and fact-finding efforts took place under the radar screen, as they were and are perceived as anti-government activities and therefore subversive. In the mid-1970s, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Rhodesia released a series of reports based on individual testimonies detailing violations by the Rhodesian security forces. Although there was also considerable evidence of guerrilla-related violations, much of this was controlled and manipulated by the State for propaganda purposes and consequently lost much of its legitimacy, and it was not until the post-independence period that some insights into liberation movement violations were developed. The CCJP also released one report that provided detail on the invidious position of civilians caught between the State security forces and liberation insurgents.25 22 ‘IBA calls for ICC to try Robert Mugabe’, Legalbrief Africa, 7 Mar. 2003. ‘Symposium Declaration: Civil Society and Justice in Zimbabwe’, 13 Aug. 2003. The ICC was established on 1 July 2002 as the first permanent international court to investigate and try individuals for the most heinous violations of international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council can decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. Thus, the referral to the ICC to immediately investigate the crisis in Zimbabwe would fall squarely within the powers of the Security Council. 24 Recommendations for establishing a Zimbabwean Truth Commission, derived from other TRC-type experiences, have been made for several years – see, for example, Truth and Reconciliation Processes: Lessons for Zimbabwe? Max du Plessis, The South African Institute of International Affairs, SAIIA Report No. 44, 2002. The 2003 Johannesburg Symposium and subsequently MDC also called for the establishment of a ‘Truth and Justice’ Commission as a primary mechanism for dealing with past violations. 25 The Man in the Middle: Torture, Resettlement and Eviction. Catholic Commission for Justice & Peace in Rhodesia, 1975. 23 13