4 Understanding the concept of impunity and Zimbabwe's national and international obligations Impunity is generally understood to mean: “the absence or inadequacy of penalties and/or compensation for massive and grave violations of the human rights of individuals or groups of individuals. This definition is applicable to civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, and to collective or communal rights”. ¹² For the purposes of this report the Forum defines impunity as the impossibility, in law or in fact, by acts or omissions, of holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable. The Forum will, throughout this report, examine the three circumstances outlined below: 1. Institutional/legal deficiencies that make it difficult or impossible to ensure accountability for crimes committed by the state (or state-endorsed) actors. 2. Deficiencies arising from the inaction of state officials in general. 3. Cultural or political reasons why the State may fail to implement accountability provisions even when all the necessary institutional mechanisms are in place.¹³ This working definition of impunity has been chosen to narrow down practices of impunity applicable to the police in Zimbabwe, as state actors. Secondly as deficiencies because of the state turning a blind eye on the actions of the police and or the lack of implementation of institutional mechanisms to hold the police accountable. This working definition allows us to focus on root causes and helps to focus the work on impunity. International Standards Under international human rights law, a state is obliged to carry out several actions in response to human rights abuses.¹⁴ Mendez reiterates that these actions are first to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators. Secondly to disclose to the victims, their families, and society all that can be reliably established about those events. Thirdly, to offer the victims adequate reparations. Lastly to separate known perpetrators from law enforcement bodies and other positions of authority.¹⁵ Mendez reiterates the position held in international law that the state's obligations to uphold human rights correspond to a set of rights for individuals and groups. The rights are outlined as follows: - the right of the victim to see justice done, the right to know the truth; an entitlement to compensation and to non-monetary forms of restitution; and a right to new, reorganized and accountable institutions.¹⁶ ¹² U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Sub-Comm. On Prevention of Discrimination & Prot. Of Minorities, Final Report on the Question of Impunity of Perpetrators of Violations of Human Rights (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) 5, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/8 (June 27, 1997). ¹³ Vinuales JE, Impunity: Elements for an Empirical Concept, Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Volume 25, Issue 1, Article 3, 2007:127. ¹⁴ Article 2, ICCPR. ¹⁵ JE Mendez, “Accountability for Past Abuses” (1997) 19 Human Rights Quarterly 255 at 260. ¹⁶ 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). Anti-Impunity Report 13