Although some human rights organisations made whatever records they could during the 1980s regarding the violations in Matabeleland and the Midlands, it was not until the mid to late 1990s that significant efforts were made to develop a systematic record of this.26 The Gukaruhundi has not been adequately addressed, and it retains a taboo status amongst many constituencies, and not only in the government and ruling party. Other violations during the 1980s and 1990s were also routinely recorded by a handful of NGOs, and more often than not given international exposure by organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which made (and continues to make) regular fact-finding missions to Zimbabwe. It was not until the late 1990s that Zimbabwean human rights organisations took a more systematic approach to documenting and reporting human rights violations, and since then a huge amount of information has been gathered and generated. This has been complemented by increased coordination and sharing of data by human rights organisations, culminating in the formation of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum in 1998. A range of international bodies have also instituted fact-finding missions, including the International Commission of Jurists, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. Individual organisations and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum have made numerous submissions to regional and international human rights mechanisms (AU, EU, UN, etc.), in an effort to secure some form of sanction or at least recognition for the violations perpetrated in Zimbabwe. Although a number of adverse reports have been made, the Zimbabwean government routinely denies any malfeasance, or has been able to avoid scrutiny with the assistance of other developing countries that have blocked efforts to subject Zimbabwe to scrutiny by United Nations human rights mechanisms. Reparation In the face of widespread human rights crimes, States have an obligation not only to act against perpetrators, but also to act on behalf of victims. Given the unlikelihood of mass prosecutions in transitional contexts, a complementary way to address victims’ claims for justice without threatening political stability in any obvious way is to try to directly repair some of the harm suffered. Reparation is also an obligation under international law. Although the precise obligations of each State vary in accordance with their respective treaty obligations, there is an emerging view that all States have an obligation to provide reparation or remedy to victims of human rights crimes.27 In Zimbabwe, the State has paid virtually no attention to victims of post-independence violence (or indeed colonial era violence), but has instead focused its support and State resources on initiatives and schemes aimed at benefiting former veterans of the liberation war. Even these were not introduced until considerable pressure was placed on the government in the late 1990s, and lump-sum payments and monthly pensions to thousands of war veterans are commonly believed to have played a significant role in generating Zimbabwe’s ongoing economic collapse. Parliament has also passed legislation designed to provide compensation to political activists detained and abused during the liberation struggle.28 26 Breaking the Silence – Building True Peace: A Report on the Disturbances in Matabeleland and the Midlands 1980 to 1988, The Catholic Commission of Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe and the Legal Resources Foundation, 1997. See also Choosing the Path to Peace and Development – Coming to Terms with Human Rights Violations of the 1982–1987 Conflict in Matabeleland and Midlands Provinces, Zimbabwe Human Rights Association, 1999. 27 ICTJ, ‘Background Paper’, p. 21. 28 The Ex-Political Prisoners, Detainees and Restrictees Act (No. 20 of 2004). 14