investigate the allegations.36 This investigation is still ongoing, but with little evidence of any progress. In another action, various groups, such as the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC), the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum and the South African History Archive, made applications to the South African courts for the South African government to make public the reports of two investigatory missions on the conduct of elections in 2002 and 2008. The former, the report of Justices Moseneke and Khampepe, was finally successful, and the report was made public in 2014,37 but, despite strenuous efforts, the latter has never been released. However, the use of the courts did again provide strong corroboration of the allegations of gross human rights violations outlined in the plethora of human rights reports by Zimbabwean organisations. Similarly, victims and families of victims of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have also approached US courts using the American Alien Claims Statute.38 The victims and survivors have instituted prosecutions against President Mugabe and other senior ZANU PF officials for serious international crimes committed in Zimbabwe. Thus, whilst there have been several uses of foreign courts with great success, there has also been the use of other bodies, such as the ACHPR and the UN Human Rights Committee, to expose the human rights record of the Zimbabwe government, and together these initiatives have resulted in widespread condemnation of the government. Together with the numerous reports, both from Zimbabwean and international human rights organisations, all of this exposure has been a contributory factor in the pressure applied on the Zimbabwe government by the Commonwealth, the European Union and the US. This bears testimony to the sterling work done by Zimbabwean organisations, and, after 2008, is probably also a reason for the improved human rights climate and the diminished violence. 4.7.6 Vetting It seems obvious that vetting was more common in the post-transition period of the countries sampled than it was in the pre-transition period. Vetting in the pre-transition period, only took place in four countries, Algeria, Honduras, Hungary and Peru, but, post-transition, took place in 20 countries. It would thus be expected that this would be the case for Zimbabwe, and is in fact so. Immediately after Independence in 1980, there was a slow re-structuring of the state agencies, but this did not involve vetting of personnel because of their involvement in gross human rights violations, apart perhaps from the disbanding of the Selous Scouts. The Scouts were likely exempted for political reasons because of their iconic identification with the former regime rather than their involvement in gross human rights violations, because, as pointed out before, most military units in all sides of the civil war were complicit in these violations. 36 National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre and Another [2014] ZACC 30. [http://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/1/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/Judgment.pdf] 37 Report on the 2002 Presidential Elections of Zimbabwe. [http://cdn.mg.co.za/content/documents/2 014/11/14/reportonthe2002presidentialelectionsofzimbabwe.pdf] 38 Chiminya Tachiona v. Mugabe, 216 F. Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 216 F. Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) August 7, 2002 42