36 both groups. Again none of this accords with “spontaneous” invasions by land hungry rural people, and is much more suggestive of an organized campaign. When the findings on the violations and the perpetrators are examined against the background of the continual allegations of widespread corruption and cronyism in the allocation of these farms, as well as the finding from this study that farmers know both the current occupier and that this occupier was involved in their eviction, it paints further detail in a picture of organization. It suggests a campaign in which political authority, civilian authority, security agencies, and nonstate actors – war veterans, youth militia and party political supporters - all collaborated in an elaborate campaign. The findings suggest a picture in which acts of commission, the violations themselves, are bolstered by widespread acts of omission, the failure of the police and the civilian authorities to enforce the law, provide protection to citizens, and obey the courts. And, as the earlier quote from the President, Robert Mugabe, illustrates, was endorsed by the highest political authority in the land. The big question remains: what was the aim of the campaign, elections or land reform? These data do not allow any specific examination of this question since it aggregates violations and perpetrators over time, and does not allow examination of either specifically in time. For example, it will be crucial in subsequent studies to examine when particular violations occurred, as has been done recently by the Human Rights Forum, which demonstrated that all violations increase significantly during election periods. 45 This study did not deal with the complex issue of the land itself, and the problems over whether property rights were violated or not, but concentrated on damages for human rights violations and consequent losses for the farmers and the farm workers. Notwithstanding the issue of ownership, the farmers and the farm workers were entitled to the protection of the law, and, where their rights were violated, are entitled to compensation for all losses incurred as a result of these violations. Hence, the data relating to losses are extremely compelling, and largely selfexplanatory. The losses incurred by the commercial farmers are clearly not trivial. Whether the estimate includes loss of earnings or not, the damages owed to the farmers is obviously beyond the capacity of the State to pay. Were the State to be held liable for these damages, as it should be, 45 See Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2006), An Analysis of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Legal Cases, 1998–2006. Published by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. June 2006, HARARE: ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM. A Preliminary Report on Human Rights Violations on Commercial Farms, 2000 to 2005.