The use of tear gas did not seem wholly strategic as alleged by the ZRP report, for, as one witness reports, places where there was definitely no riotous behaviour were tear gassed. We said, “Here we are safe because we don’t break, we just drink here, no breaking... Drinking -drinking.” Then some time when the riot people came, police. Then they fired some tear gas. I think they were firing them to the people who were drinking outside , on… in the bottle store, outside the bottle store... Some ….those tear gas, they come, to disturb us all. The fumes. So, all the people were angry. They climbed the Durawalls, of that pub. Of that beers garden. You know that we scaled... But later on they had gone. The data here does not bear out the claims of minimum force. Most of the people interviewed reported very widespread use of tear gas, which may also have had an inflammatory effect of the crowds, and certainly this was so in the riots in December 1997, where many observers attributed the violence to the heavy handed actions of the ZRP. Indeed, it has been a frequent accusation by human rights observers that the tendency by the ZRP to quickly resort to tear gas seems to exacerbate rather than ameliorate violence. This would seem to have been the case in Mabvuku during the Food Riots. Dragnet searches Since the ZRP were unable to control the looting in any way, the next response would have been normal police inquiries as a follow-up. This did not take place, and instead dragnet searches, with both ZRP and ZNA details, became the order of the day. Normal policing methods do not seem to have been followed, and all witnesses are agreed that these were highly intimidatory, involving assaults and humiliating and degrading treatment. This is a far cry from “manhandling” as alleged by the state media. I think it was on Thursday. At this area, they used to go through areas. (pointing to behind the women’s centre). So Thursday morning they would not allow people to get out of their yards. They know if they allow people to get outside their yards or their gates. People were kept so they could come and see anyone at home. So hence there was a reign of terror in Tafara/Mabvuku. I mean, they did door to door. And anybody with anything remotely now was a suspect. And people couldn’t prove where they got this 5 kg. There was a lot of questioning of children. And they were totally uncaring whether it was women or pregnant women. That was the thing that shocked me. As Mrs Tungamirai alleges in Hansard, there were brutalities in Mabvuku and Tafara, and this is amply borne out by the views of all of those who were interviewed. This is completely at odds with the assertion by the ZRP that “this was achieved through extensive use of minimum force”. In fact, the converse may be asserted: that control was achieved through extensive use of maximum force. Police brutality There are numerous reports of police brutality in Mabvuku. This is asserted by all the persons interviewed. The brutality ranged from humiliating and degrading treatment through to torture. There were two brothers. They were told to fight each other then and there by soldiers. The other one said “No, I can’t fight him, he’s my brother.” They beat him with a baton stick (three soldiers and three police). They moved together (the soldiers and police). Even if you looked at them they would say “Why are you looking at us?” There was this other guy who had shouted at them, “Why are you firing tear gas, we didn’t act violently with you, we didn’t break anything, he, we are drinking safely.” He was beaten. He was beaten up. By the police, the riot police. (Question: What did they