basis in Zimbabwe was unfounded and thus dismissed it. Article 60 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter), urges the African Commission “to draw inspirations from international law” and the matter at hand involves the concept of wrongful death, a concept drawn from English law in the Fatal Accident Act Section 1(1) notes that: “If death is accused by any wrongful act, neglect or default which is such as would (if death had not ensured) have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured.” In relation to the above, the government of Zimbabwe argued that the African Commission could not be referred to provisions of national legislation of a country (United Kingdom) which is not party to the African Charter. This kind of policy as adopted by the Zimbabwe government is backward looking and should be reviewed. While it is important to maintain the country's sovereignty it does not make sense for the government to reject recommendations from international on the basis that they are from foreign lands. That Zimbabwe is open for business but remains closed to new forms of implementing justice for victims and survivors of past human rights violations is unacceptable. The Forum has maintained that the proceedings that would have been instituted by the deceased if he had not died can be initiated by his dependents and this should be reflected in the law books. As its stands Zimbabwean law makes no room for compensation in case of wrongful death, except funeral expenses reimbursement and loss of support to children or the surviving spouse. There is no provision for bereavement damages. The Government of Zimbabwe argued then in the African Commission case that “the law does not support claims for the wrongful death of a person per se … for one to succeed in a claim for damages situations where persons are wrongfully killed, the claimant must prove loss of support”. ⁵⁷ The government of Zimbabwe argued that the common law position on entitlement to compensation is that dependents of a deceased can claim such compensation for the pecuniary loss they have suffered in consequence of the death of a person who maintained or had an obligation to maintain them. Therefore, Zimbabwean common law provides for compensation for damages for aquilian action or actio iniuriarum. It does not provide damages for solatium. This means generally in Zimbabwe, no compensation is payable for the wrongful death of a person, as it is not an injury to the surviving person. The only damages that are available are loss of support to dependents of the deceased and funeral expenses. ⁵⁸ According to the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, remedies for gross violations of international human rights law include the victim's right to adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered.⁵⁹ According to principle 20, compensation should be provided for 'any economically assessable damage', such as 'physical or ⁵⁷ African Commission case at para 81. ⁵⁸ African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights Communication 295/04: Noah Kazingachire, John Chitsenga, Elias Chemvura and Batanai Hadzidzi (represented by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe at para 102. ⁵⁹ UNGA Res. 60/174: Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. 30 Anti-Impunity Report