REDRESS/AMANI are to investigate actions of government officials ‘where it is alleged that a person has suffered injustice in consequence of that action and it does not appear that there is any remedy reasonably available by way of proceedings in a court or on appeal from a court.’ The Ombudsman Act [Chapter 10:18] was promulgated in 1982 and the office established, but the Ombudsman was specifically precluded from making any investigations relating to the police, army and prison services. 55 As a result, the Ombudsman could have no impact on human rights abuses. In 1996, the Constitution was amended in order for the Act itself to be widened, and in 1997 the Act was amended by the insertion of a new provision which gives the President the power to make Regulations providing for all the powers of the Ombudsman to be exercised over the Defence Forces, the Police Force and the Prison Service.56 However, the President has made no such Regulations and thus the Ombudsman’s office continues to be precluded from investigating allegations of human rights abuses by any of these forces. Even if the President was to pass such Regulations, the Act also provides that the Ombudsman may not investigate such allegations if the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs has given written notice that the investigation would not be in the interests of public security or foreign relations of Zimbabwe. 57 Since 1998, the State no longer even attempts to seriously deny the systematic use it makes of torture, which is now an integral part of its weaponry to repress dissent. Following the widespread abuses leading up to the June 2000 Parliamentary election, another amnesty was declared in October of that year. 58 The current position, therefore, is that the State is taking no steps to prevent or reduce torture, or to bring perpetrators to justice. For a variety of reasons, any right to reparation for victims which exists under Zimbabwe law is extremely difficult to pursue, and is becoming practically impossible in all but a small minority of cases. C. International Responses During the fifteen years of UDI, the exposure and condemnation of the widespread and institutionalised practice of torture under the RF Government became part of the international campaign to put an end to the illegal minority regime. Torture took place and was correctly seen in the context of the almost complete denial of all basic human rights for the majority. Like the other wars for black rule in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa, events in Rhodesia took place in the context of the larger cold war in which Southern Africa was of considerable strategic value. The United Nations became an important arena of struggle: international economic sanctions and an arms embargo were imposed and no country recognised the rebel UDI ‘state’.59 However, Portugal and apartheid South Africa openly defied the UN and directly supported the Smith Government until 1974 and 1978 respectively, and the major western powers, including the colonial power Britain, 55 Section 8. 56 Section 108 of the Constitution was amended by Section 13 of Act 14 of 1996 [Amendment 14], and was followed by the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1997, [No. 4 of 1997]. 57 Besides the inherent weakness in the legislation and the lack of political will on the part of Zanu-PF to protect human rights, the office of the Ombudsman has long been in disarray and is years behind in making the required annual report of its activities to Parliament. It was foreseen that the amendments would be purely cosmetic, and indeed irrelevant: see The Ombudsman’s new powers to deal with human rights abuses: How effective will these powers be? Geoff Feltoe, Legal Forum, (Harare), Vol. 9, No. 1, (March 1997), p.37-38. 58 Clemency Order No.1 of 2000, published on 6 October 2000 (General Notice 457A of 2000). 59 For a summary of the General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions see, Racial Discrimination and Repression in Southern Rhodesia, International Commission of Jurists, Geneva, 1976, pp.8 -9. 11