The general mantra that “Zimbabwe is open for business” that has formed the campaign stance of President Mnangagwa should be matched by a similar call to declare the Zimbabwe Courts and its police systems also “open for business”. The police should be able to answer to all cases of past human rights violations that have been leveled against them. The Forum argues this point from the standpoint that punishing all state security agents who were involved in cases of human rights violations especially those of a political nature has a deterrent effect in the context of entrenched regimes committing large scale crimes such as the Zimbabwean government since they do not expect to lose power nor to be punished.⁷² The gravity of punishment sends a message to other regimes and other potential violators that they too cannot continue committing such crimes and hope for amnesty in future. Deterrence is premised on either the notion that you are likely to be caught and punished for what you do and or that punishment will prevent a rational decision maker from committing the crime. Indeed, the fact that large - scale crimes continue to occur worldwide despite several prosecution initiatives for such crimes may show that the threat of prosecution alone may not be an adequate deterrent. If the government refuses to implement an honest and genuine prosecutorial approach to the past human rights violations by the police, the international community must be called upon to enforce other universal human rights norms applicable to apprehend and punish those who commit international crimes, as more potential violators will be forced to consider the consequences and start to be dissuaded from launching criminal campaigns. Who to prosecute Questions that have been asked in Zimbabwe center on the time that since elapsed since some of the crimes that have been raised by the Forum were committed by the accused state security agents. It is true that some of the cases have already suffered the prescription period and thus cannot be prosecutable. Technically this would be right but the Forum argues to the contrary and in this report, argues that there is a strong legal case against ordering cases based on prescription especially where it can be proven that there were genuine obstacles that were presented to the victims by the police, the accused and the state. Secondly, the question of who to prosecute considering the certain waves of political disturbances where orders were said to be coming from “above” continues to raise its ugly head. The Forum believes that while there can be no excuses for those state security agents who committed torture, there can be other criteria that can be discussed at a national level and in parliament to prosecute perpetrators., In this proposition, the Forum is guided by what transpired during Alfonsin's time in Argentina. At the time of reckoning with their past, Argentina proposed three categories to choose those who to prosecute. The categories were divided among a) those who gave the orders to violate human rights, b) those that carried out the orders and c) those who engaged in human rights violations beyond the actions they were ordered to take. One of the most difficult issues that the Zimbabwean legal system and victims alike should confront is the excuse that some of the state security agents did not know that their actions at that time constituted criminal acts. The argument emanates from the reasoning that in most instances, the political ⁷² See C Villa - Vicencio „Why Perpetrators Should Not Always Be Prosecuted: Where the ICC and Truth Commissions Meet‟ (2000) 49 Emory Law Journal 210. Anti-Impunity Report 37