1 Introduction The role of the police and state security agents in a democratic society is pivotal if the rule of law is to remain meaningful and human rights are to be protected and enjoyed by everyone. It is not contradictory to say that the police are essential protectors of human rights in a democratic society but that the nature of their work can also make them responsible for human rights abuses (through excessive use of force, through discriminatory practices etc.).¹ The above quotation from Dinsdale's 1997 opening address to the Council of Europe on Human Rights and the Police sums up the thrust of this report. State security agents such as the police, the army and the central intelligence in Zimbabwe are expected and have been known to play a pivotal role in the protection of the internal security of the nation. Their roles are set out in Zimbabwe's Constitution and other subordinate laws related to policing and national security services. However, over the years the human rights situation in Zimbabwe deteriorated dismally under the repressive regime of former President Robert Mugabe. Different state and non-state actors including the police were accused of serious human rights violations against citizens. These reports have been confirmed further by cases won in court by complainants. Investigations have been carried out in some instances but in most of the cases, alleged rights violations cases by the police have remained unresolved. For those cases where the police have been found guilty by the courts, fines and sentences have been imposed. Where cases have been taken for civil litigation and awards for damages given, these have often taken time to be paid and some have remained outstanding for extensive periods. In some cases, where damages have been paid the victims have complained that the money was not adequate as it failed to ensure restorative justice for the victims. Some may view the low sums paid to victims for abuses as understandable, but the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) cannot absolve itself of responsibility by pleading incapacity to pay. The GoZ has, in cases, failed to honor demands for payment of damages where its security agents have been found liable by the courts citing inability to pay because of a poorly performing economy. Often, the GoZ has manipulated the laws in its favour. The State Liabilities Act (Chapter 8:14) forbids government property from being attached by victims who have been awarded damages. The bedrock of state-sanctioned impunity for human rights violations lies between perpetrators of state-organized violence who cannot be sued in their personal capacities, or those who cannot afford to pay the damages by themselves and a government which abuses its own laws to save itself from a victimized populace. The 'untouchable' nature of state security officials such as the police remains a cause for concern in Zimbabwe's quest for justice for victims of state-sanctioned human rights violations. The GoZ in the past set up Commissions² to investigate cases of human rights violations by state security agents but this has not yielded any tangible outcomes. Zimbabwe's challenge today is to fight this impunity and have state security agents that are accountable, uphold human rights, and protecting its citizens. ¹ J Dinsdale opening address in Human Rights and the Police Council of Europe 1997 pg. 8. ² For example, the Commission of Inquiry into the Matabeleland Disturbances from 1983 to 1984, also known as the Chihambakwe Commission of Inquiry (named after its chairperson Mr. Simplisius Chihambakwe) was set up by the then Prime Minister, Robert Mugabe in 1983. The government of Zimbabwe has never made public the report of the Commission and its recommendations. Anti-Impunity Report 5