By and large, however, these undertakings have not been followed through. With no ‘point’ organisation driving the process, and in the context of evolving contemporary challenges (such as the March 2005 parliamentary elections), the ‘transitional justice’ debate has been effectively suspended. The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum and Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition attempted to initiate a dialogue with the main political parties, but were unable to secure any response from either party. There was some history of co-operation with the government, and it was hoped that it would be possible to engage in a rational deliberative process to ensure that the broad spectrum of violations from both colonial and post-colonial periods could be addressed. This was not, however, to be the case. The Symposium Report was only officially launched in March 2004, some seven months after the event, and only in Johannesburg. The report was not officially launched in Zimbabwe, which has undoubtedly contributed to the lack of profile these issues currently hold inside the country. Copies of the report are available online at <http://www.santsep.co.za/satc>, and the symposium ‘summary’ and ‘declaration’ were posted on several websites focusing on Zimbabwe (e.g. <http:// www.kubatana.org>). Copies of the report (which included an executive summary and a record of the entire proceedings in hard copy and CD format) were printed in South Africa and sent to the Harare offices of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. Copies were disseminated to organisations that had participated in the Symposium, but not beyond this. Several organisations that had branches in different parts of the country (e.g. Civnet, Zimrights etc) and membership-based organisations (e.g. ZCTU) did not receive (nor, it would seem, did they request) multiple copies for wider distribution within their networks. It is evident from this situation, as well as discussions held with a range of non-governmental organisations during 2004, that with a few exceptions (see section on victims below), the Symposium report and ‘Declaration’ have not been widely distributed within Zimbabwe. Consequently, the issues mooted and recommended by the Symposium were not disseminated or discussed in much (or any) detail, even by most organisations that participated. Indeed, most organisations interviewed during 2004 acknowledged that they should have taken more responsibility for this, feeling that evolving circumstances and ongoing ‘crisis management’ had prevented them giving the issue the necessary attention. Some (i.e. Zimrights) had engaged in limited internal discussions, but in the context of pressing contemporaneous priorities, the issues raised had not been carried forward. Most organisations spoken to recognised the importance of keeping transitional justice concerns on the agenda and indicated they would remain receptive to related initiatives. It seems unlikely, however, that most organisations will proactively generate discussion within their own organisations, structures and constituencies without some form of stimulus, ‘leadership’ and/or guidance. In addition, many of these groups will require assistance with the development and/or direct provision of relevant resource material for dissemination. Building a platform for victims The legitimacy and credibility of transitional justice initiatives hinges on the support and involvement of victims and survivors. Moving beyond a rhetorical commitment to these objectives presents a major challenge to societies in transition. 18