persons being unlawfully arrested and detained together with the guilty. As can be seen from the analysis of the Court data, most people (72%) were discharged as the evidence could not sustain a prosecution. The dragnet approach was bad policing, and even if this could be laid at the door of the military, it remains the responsibility of the State to ensure that responsible and effective policing occurs in all situations. Seventhly, the use of such methods, and the hurried processing of some of the cases through the courts, has also created a considerable risk of miscarriages of justice. The whole process of justice seems to have been undermined by the failure to deal with these cases using the ordinary legal rules and principles, and the allegations of political interference in the process of justice require detailed examination to ensure that no person was unfairly charged or, more importantly, incorrectly sentenced, especially on warned and cautioned statements obtained under duress. As was seen above, there are prima facie grounds for accepting that statements were obtained under duress and even under torture. As a result the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum wishes to repeat the recommendations made earlier in the report published on 10 March 1998: 1. Commission of Inquiry It is necessary for Government to set up, as soon as possible, an independent Commission of Inquiry headed by a High Court Judge to investigate these allegations of human rights violations. In the interests of transparency and accountability the findings of this Commission must be made public. We would note here that this call has been additionally made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and we wish to endorse the recommendations of this Committee. 2. Parliamentary Committee Pending the setting up of such a Commission, the organisations request Parliament to establish its own Committee to look into these allegations and report its findings to Parliament. In conducting these investigations the Parliamentary Committee should enlist the assistance of the Ombudsman’s office which now has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of human rights abuses on the part of members of the police, army and prison service. Although the Ombudsman may only investigate when complaints have been made to that office, the proposed Parliamentary Committee would be able to refer some of the complainants to the Ombudsman’s office so that their complaints can be investigated by personnel in this office. 3. Compensation Following these inquiries arrangements must be made for compensation to be awarded to all persons found to have suffered human rights abuses without those persons having to bring claims in the courts. Government must also take stern disciplinary action against all those who are proven to have perpetrated human rights abuses to send a clear signal that this sort of misconduct will not be tolerated. 4. Review of proceedings against those charged with unlawful violence or looting In respect of those who are alleged to have engaged in unlawful violence the law must continue to take its course. However these cases must be dealt with according to the ordinary rules of procedure and evidence which are there to ensure that accused persons receive fair trials. Any cases that were hurriedly processed through the courts in the emotionally charged atmosphere following upon the food riots must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that no miscarriages of justice have occurred. The sentences in these cases must also be carefully scrutinised to ensure that they were fair and not disproportionate, taking into account the all the relevant factors that have a bearing upon sentence, including the fact that the criminal action may have been an expression of anger and frustration about harsh economic conditions. On the other hand, more deterrent sentences are obviously appropriate for hooligans and criminals who simply took advantage of the troubled situation to commit crimes.