Zimbabwe does not have a good track record in terms of holding such perpetrators accountable, and the legal system has been used selectively and without meaningful commitment to address widespread and systematic violations which have characterised periods of both pre- and postindependent Zimbabwe. Both the Rhodesian and Zimbabwean courts have demonstrated a capacity for independence, and have made adverse rulings against State officials vis-à-vis gross human rights violations. Consequently, notions of criminal or civil liability are certainly not alien to many Zimbabweans. Despite this, in most instances perpetrators of gross human rights violations in both Rhodesian and Zimbabwean dispensations have retained some sort of de jure and de facto impunity.15 Although there are widespread allegations of violations, as documented by human rights organisations, it is not clear how many criminal charges have actually been laid with the police in this regard. The Zimbabwe Republic Police, which was not regarded as a primary perpetrator prior to 200016 has become so discredited in recent years that very few people appear willing to lay charges, either because they do not expect any significant action will be taken, or because they fear retribution, especially if the perpetrator is a member of the State security forces, or part of a proxy youth militia or war veteran grouping. Allegations of abuses by the ZRP, Central Intelligence Organisation, Zimbabwe National Army and others have, however, been raised during other criminal prosecutions (e.g. the Cain Nkala murder trial) and other court actions (e.g. interdicts against farm invasions). During 2003 and 2004, the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Legal Resources Foundation instituted over 100 civil claims in relation to allegations of torture at the hands of State security agents. As a result, the civil division of the Attorney General’s office is currently faced with a massive backlog of matters to be dealt with. Although it is not expected that these cases will necessarily bring any meaningful relief, they provide an important record of the efforts taken to seek some measure of account. Legal efforts to force the government to release the report of the Chihambakwe Commission of Inquiry into the Gukurahundi were squashed by the Supreme Court during 2004.17 Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Legal Resources Foundation are still contemplating a class action suit to compel President Robert Mugabe to publish findings of investigations into military atrocities against civilians in Matabeleland in the 1980s.18 Experience shows that efforts to bring former dictators and perpetrators of past human rights violations to account are often mired in political controversy and practical difficulties. If and when a new political dispensation emerges in Zimbabwe the issue of how best to deal with past violations is likely to resurface. Although the August 2003 symposium recommended the establishment of a ‘Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission’ as the ‘main mechanism’ for dealing with past human rights abuses, the option of criminal trials has not been discarded. This is very much in line with general transitional justice principles that affirm the importance of retaining retributive justice options. There is, however, no certainty that this will happen, and much will depend on the nature of any new constitutional and legal arrangements, and the extent to which negotiation and political compromise dilute, or indeed bolster, commitments to justice and accountability. 15 A series of amnesties, pardons and indemnities have been granted between 1975 and 2002. This includes the 1975 Indemnity and Compensation Act, the 1979 Amnesty Ordinance, the 1980 General Amnesty Ordinance, 1988 Clemency Order, 1995 Presidential Pardon, 2000 Clemency Order and 2002 Clemency Order. 16 Human Rights NGOs in Zimbabwe were primarily concerned with the allegations against the Central Intelligence Organisation (now known as the Department of National Security), as well as the Zimbabwe National Army. In recent years, however, there have been an increasing number of allegations regarding several branches of the ZRP. 17 Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Anor v. President of Zimbabwe & Anor S-12-03 (Civ App 311/99). 18 ‘Mugabe faces class action lawsuit’, The Zimbabwe Independent, 10 Sept. 2004. 11