Torture and shootings A comparison was also made between the awards made to those clients that were claiming for injuries due to shootings and those that were claiming damages due to torture. There is an important distinction to be made between these two groups. Those that were shot were all shot accidentally; that is, their wounds came about because of the reckless discharge of firearms, mostly by the police. This is well described in the cases summarised earlier. The other group, those claiming torture, were deliberately harmed by either the police or the army, and this too is well illustrated by the cases described earlier. It is the deliberate infliction of harm that characterises the differences between the two groups, and the difference in intent should to some extent influence both the claiming of damages as well as the award. There does seem to be a significant difference between a person injured by the discharge of a rifle by a poorly-trained and frightened policeman, on the one hand, and the systematic assault of an unarmed person by a group of policemen or soldiers, on the other. Thus, it is interesting to see, from the cases completed, that greater damages were claimed by, and that the courts gave greater awards to, those who were shot than those who were tortured. This is well illustrated in Table 18. Table 18: Comparison of average damages awarded to shootings versus torture Damages claimed Damages awarded Torture Z$ US$ 59,035 2,123 13,859 207 Shootings Z$ US$ 253,946 10,032 308,863 1,595 There was no difference in the time taken for resolution of the cases for the two groups, but the torture group did have a greater number of persons that took longer than three years. There are clearly substantial differences in the damages claimed and awarded: the shootings cases both claimed and received greater damages. The differences between claim and award were also significantly different for the shootings cases, as seen in Table 19: there was a greater discrepancy between the claims and the awards for the shootings cases. Thus, it would appear that, whilst the courts viewed the reckless discharge of firearms as more serious than torture, they also did not view the injuries of those shot as warranting the damages claimed. Table 19: Average differences in damages Difference between claim and award [Z$] Difference between claim and award [US$] Torture 45,176 1,916 Shootings 54,917 8,437 Now clearly the hands of the courts are tied by specified quanta for damages, but there does nonetheless seem to be an anomaly here in that deliberately inflicted harm is seen as less serious than accidental injury. Certainly the consequences of being shot can be more serious, involving potential loss of life, but, where life is not threatened, then disability is likely for both types of harm, and undoubtedly the contumely due to torture is infinitely greater. Here it is clear that the failure of the Zimbabwe government to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and to create a domestic crime of torture leads directly to the view that these victims suffered merely assaults, and assault is a significantly less serious crime than torture. 19