TORTURE IN ZIMBABWE, PAST AND PRESENT 211 Zimbabwe and the foreign country concerned.” The extradition of persons in connection with purely political crimes is not prohibited.212 Under Part II, the Minister of Home Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs may publish an order in the Government Gazette designating any foreign country, and can either make the order with conditions, in which case the provisions of the Act are modified, or if no conditions are made, then the provisions of the Act stand. Unlike extradition under Part I, extradition under Part II is subject to the doublecriminality rule and to the rule that political offences are non-extraditable. 213 Extraditions under Part II were based largely on the Commonwealth Scheme Relating to the Rendition of Fugitive Offenders Within the Commonwealth, agreed upon at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting held in London in 1966, as subsequently reviewed, especially at the Harare Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting in 1986. Since Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth the precise legal arrangement is not clear. Generally, extradition proceedings are initiated by a request from the foreign state, which can lead to a hearing in the Magistrates Court to decide whether a warrant of arrest should be issued, or, if the person is in custody, whether bail should be granted. The final decision, however, rests with the Minister as to whether the person whose extradition is being sought is surrendered to the foreign state or not. 214 C. Practice Zimbabwe has not been called upon to exercise universal jurisdiction, although the Ethiopian government apparently requested the extradition of Mengistu Haile Mariam, the former ruler of Ethiopia to stand trial in that country for crimes against humanity. Mengistu fled to Zimbabwe in May 1991 when his government was overthrown, and he has been living in luxury in Harare ever since. To date Zimbabwe has provided a safe haven for the ex-dictator who ruled Ethiopia from 1974-1991, during which period tens of thousands of his countrymen were imprisoned, tortured or killed as ‘counter-revolutionaries.’ VI.2 . A. Claiming Reparation for Torture Committed in 3 rd Countries Legal Action Against Individual Perpetrators The general rule is that the High Court has unlimited civil jurisdiction over all persons within Zimbabwe where the cause of action arose in the country. 215 Where 211 Section 3 (2) (a). 212 Ibid. 213 Sections 14 (2) (b) and Section 15 (b) and (c). 214 Adrian de Borboun SC in his paper Litigation – human rights in Zimbabwe: Past, present and future (above, fn. 21) at p. 113 draws attention to an incident after Independence as follows: “ The very first case that was heard by the Supreme Court under the [Lancaster House] Constitution of Zimbabwe got the whole subject of human rights off to a bad start. A man named Mandirwhe had been arrested by State security officers and surrendered to officials in Mozambique without any formal extradition proceedings. He in fact spent twenty-one months in all in custody in Mozambique. A writ of habeas corpus was sought, and the trial judge referred to the Supreme Court asking it to determine what measures should be taken to secure the enforcement of the Declaration of Rights with regard to Mandirwhe. The Supreme court declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the grounds that the High Court could still make an effective order without having any constitutional order determined.” See Mandirwhe v Minister of State 1986 (1) ZLR 1 (A);1981 (1) SA 750 (ZA) 215 Civil jurisdiction is governed by the common law as modified by High Court Act (Chapter 7:06). The civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is governed by the Magistrates Court Act (Chapter 7:10). 42