15 The findings indicate that the victims were motivated to testify and that this was supported by their families and their communities. The pre-testimony process seems to have been wellorganised, with virtually all the sample being satisfied with the preparation and support given by the legal and medical teams. This is an important finding since it was intended that there be as much support as possible for these victims, and that the support lead to the best possible testimony. The process of testifying was rather more complex. For nearly all the sample, this was their first time in court, and the adversarial process was intimidating for virtually all: only 24% felt that that they had been well-treated under cross-examination. Additionally, most felt that the judges were indifferent to them, but most felt that they had had enough time for their testimony and had been able to say all that they wanted. The presence of the respondent, who was generally accused of sponsoring violence that had directly affected the witnesses, was clearly intimidating. There are clearly some issues that have a strong bearing on any future human rights tribunals. Most felt relieved that this clearly intimidating process was over, and most were happy with the verdicts. Although there was no shift in mental health status that went with the verdict, it was apparent that those victims who felt that their testimony had produced a successful verdict were more satisfied than those from the unsuccessful petition. That there was no shift in mental health status due to the verdict must be seen in the light of the subsequent threats and attacks upon these witnesses. It would be unusual for there to have been a shift when threats of a very real nature still remained. The Court process was clearly difficult for these victims, and very different to the process that obtains in human rights tribunals such as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Testimonies were given in a clearly adversarial setting, and not in a victim-driven setting, and this clearly makes it much more difficult for victims. It seems clear that certain factors must be taken into account when victims of torture are giving testimony, and the first relates obviously to their safety. Clearly it is wholly unacceptable that any witness is harassed or attacked as a consequence of being a witness, and it should be incumbent upon the courts to ensure that witness protection is seriously undertaken by the police. This must be so for attacks upon witnesses or harassement is an attempt to subvert justice, and the courts have to take a strong line here. The second issue relates to the giving of testimony itself. Where victims of torture are appearing in court, there should be mechanisms to ensure that the process is victim-driven, in much the Heroism in the Dock: Does testifying help victims of organised violence and torture? A pilot study from Zimbabwe.