8 Types of remedies Zimbabwe's law provides various mechanisms to deal with cases of human rights violations by state security agents. The violations can be classified as criminal or civil depending on what the charges are and what relief is being sought by the victim. Different interpretations of the law lead to varied remedies being presented to a community of state sponsored violence that are not necessarily well versed in the law. This should however not deter victims from reporting their cases to the police, human rights defenders such as the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Statutory bodies such as the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission or even the police themselves. While the go to remedy for most victims remains the push for criminal prosecutions for the perpetrators, the Forum argues that other forms can be followed with as much equal success as prosecutions. This section discusses the various remedies that may be pursued. Reports against the police Article 93 of the Police Act provides for a police to have the function of "preserving the internal security of and maintaining law and order in Zimbabwe."⁶⁶ The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) operates under the direct command of the Commissioner General of Police, under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The administration of the ZRP and terms and conditions of service are set out in the Police Act, which prohibits serving members of the police force from engaging in partisan politics. Citizens and victims alike are free to report cases against the police to any police station or security officer of the state. The ZRP is mandated by the Constitution and Police Act to ensure “prompt and speedy investigations of the matters reported”. Within a reasonable time, the matter must be brought before a competent court of law for adjudication by a judge either in the Magistrates Court or High Court of Zimbabwe. The argument for prosecutions Zimbabwe provides in its constitution for the provision of prosecution for those who would have committed transgressions of a criminal or civil nature. Legal prosecutions⁶⁷ generally ensure administration of justice by a formal system committed to due process⁶⁸ fairness and opportunities for individuals to be heard during trials.⁶⁹ Minnow argues that to respond to mass atrocity with legal prosecutions is to embrace the rule of law.⁷⁰ Mendez maintains that settling criminal responsibility for the very worst crimes is essential to peace, because it “separates the responsibility of the individual who exploits the fears of the population for political gain from the collective guilt that is wrongly assigned to collectivities.⁷¹ ⁶⁶ Article 93 of the Zimbabwe Police Act. ⁶⁷ The reasons for prosecution are canvassed in the ground breaking article by D Orentlicher, Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime‟ (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2551, at 2537, see also SP Huntington supra note 2 at 213 - 4 for more discussions on the arguments for and against prosecutions. ⁶⁸ These include such aspects as the right to be informed promptly in a language that one understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right of one to be tried in a language that one understands or, or if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language; and the right to have legal counsel assigned to one by the state. ⁶⁹ M Minnow, „Between Vengeance and Forgiveness‟ (1998) at 25 in HJ Steiner and P Alston (eds), International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (2nd Edition Oxford University Press) 1143. ⁷⁰ M Minnow, “Between Vengeance and Forgiveness‟ (1998) at 25 in HJ Steiner and P Alston (eds), International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (2nd Edition Oxford University Press) 1143. ⁷¹ JE Mendez, “Accountability for Past Abuses‟ (1997) 19 Human Rights Quarterly 255 at 260. 41 See, The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violators of International Humanitarian Law (adopted 16 December 2005 UNGA 60th Session, Resolution 147 (A/Res/60/147). 36 Anti-Impunity Report