Conclusions As stated at the beginning of this report, a consideration of the Food Riots may seem gratuitous in the light of the violence and the epidemic of gross human rights violations that have taken place subsequently. However, with the threats of peaceful mass demonstrations currently being posed by the MDC and other civic groups, as well as the repeated threats of a violent response by the State,22 it does not seem gratuitous to return to a previous period and examine the manner in which the State has handled such public expressions. It is evident that the assertions of the Human Rights Forum, that the State violated the principle of minimum harm, have been supported in every way. This has been demonstrated by the research as well as by the findings of Zimbabwean courts. Firstly, the research showed that massive numbers of ordinary citizens were arrested and incarcerated on grounds that could not be supported in law.23 In Harare, convictions could be obtained for only 13% of those arrested, whilst over 70% were discharged after periods well in excess of the statutory maximum. A similar picture obtained for Chitungwiza, where 73% were discharged. Overall, in Harare and Chitungwiza, only 18% of those arrested could be found guilty of any crime. All of these persons who were not charged, or whose charges were dismissed, had prima facie claims for wrongful arrest and illegal detention, but they were afforded no remedy by the State. It is relevant to point out that the UN Human Rights Committee made an explicit request to the Zimbabwe government to afford such remedy, but that this did not happen. Secondly, there is abundant evidence that State agents, both the police and the army, committed gross human rights violations on a massive scale. There is clear evidence from the court cases that the Zimbabwe Republic Police were guilty of reckless discharge of firearms, and there must therefore be considerable apprehension currently that, when the State threatens potential demonstrators with violent suppression, this will occur again. As the court cases show, many innocent people, not even remotely connected to the disturbances, were injured by the shots recklessly fired, mainly by the police. The human rights community has since that time made repeated calls for weapons of war – automatic weapons – to be withdrawn from the police, but these calls have been wholly ignored. It was also evident from the court cases that both the police and the army were guilty of torture, and this was corroborated by the case studies from Mabvuku. Here, it should be pointed out that there should be very unusual circumstances occurring for the army to be deployed against civilians, and, where these circumstances prevail, it is also clear that the army must show considerable restraint in dealing with civilians. On the evidence from the Food Riots, the Zimbabwe National Army does not appear to show restraint in dealing with civilians, and the widespread torture and assaults reported, and confirmed by the court cases, indicate that the army should not be deployed without very strong grounds. Here, it must be admitted that there was looting and destruction being wrought by civilians during the Food Riots, but it is highly debatable that this required the deployment of the army, and incontestable that this deployment should have required the army to behave with the excessive brutality that has been described. 22 Minister of State Security, Didymus Mutasa said: ‘Anyone, particularly Tsvangirai who threatens peace and stability in this country will get capital punishment … and we mean it. We maintain organs of national security such as the army to protect the stability and integrity of our country. They will be instructed to use all resources at their disposal, including guns (to stop protests)’. ‘Zimbabwe Security Minister threatens to shoot protesters’, Zim Online, 12 April 2006. The Minister subsequently denied this statement. 23 This is not a situation that has improved in recent years, and indeed has worsened with the passing of the nownotorious Public Order and Security Act (POSA). Here see again, Solidarity Peace Trust, Disturbing the Peace. 20