many years. The need to know the truth Many victims of police brutality in Zimbabwe have expressed the need to just know the truth about the abuses they suffered. Some victims who have been in touch with the Forum put forward an argument that at times proceeding with a prosecutorial approach would just leave them going around in circles with perpetrators being on the defensive, lying or misrepresenting facts about what really transpired. Indeed, while it is true that trials can deepen wounds, the Forum believes that victims should not be led or coerced to forgive and move on. The approach that should be taken is that those who want to forgive perpetrators can only do so when they know who to forgive and for what crimes. Many victims and survivors in Zimbabwe know what violations were perpetrated on them but at times they want to know who the perpetrators were, why they were targeted and what has changed in the status of the perpetrators with regards accountability and remorse. The Forum is not under any illusion that a truth-seeking process cannot replace a justice-seeking approach focused on prosecuting those responsible for serious past human rights violations especially by state security agents. However, faced with a reality that numerous victims continue to raise these sentiments it is important that their views are documented and presented. This can be achieved through a process outside an official truth-seeking body such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission or, as the Forum proposed in 2003, a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission set up for that purpose. What is important to acknowledge is the fact that victims of torture and other brutalities by state security agents want and need to know how the violations happened, who gave the orders, what kind of orders were given and other relevant information. It is true that full criminal trials have the potential to unearth all the details of what transpired during the periods when serious human rights violations were committed by state security agents in Zimbabwe. The Forum acknowledges the fact that most truth recovery processes or institutions hold less power than courts of law. There is however a counter argument that criminal trials drag on for too long and might have many technicalities that might lead to information getting hidden because of questions on due process, among other things. Responding to criticism that truth-seeking bodies have an inherent weakness of granting amnesty, Sachs notes that: Most prosecutions involve amnesty anyhow. Without accomplice participation you don't get very far. And how do you get accomplice evidence? The prosecutor tells the accomplice: [If you tell the truth you may get amnesty]. This wasn't a notion invented just for the TRC. It is one of the core techniques of prosecutions anywhere in the world.⁵¹ The Forum agrees that a truth recovery process not necessarily couched in truth and reconciliation commission terms represents another key approach to providing justice for the victims of past abuses by security state agents. Neier argues in defense of such official enquiries noting that: By knowing what happened, a nation is able to debate honestly why and how dreadful crimes came ⁵¹ A Sachs “Four Sayings and a Denouncement‟ in Charles Villa Vicencio and Erik Doxtader (eds.) The Provocations of Amnesty: Memory, Justice and Impunity (Institute for Justice and Reconciliation South Africa 2003) 19. 26 Anti-Impunity Report