combined to contribute the abhorrence with which the international community began to regard Zimbabwe, and undoubtedly contributed to the actions taken by Western governments, the Commonwealth, and even to the actions of SADC in 2008. The next critical development in the human rights field took place in 2003, with the holding of the Symposium on “Civil Society and Justice in Zimbabwe” (Themba LeSizwe. 2004). More than 70 civil society organisations from Zimbabwe attended, as well as a number of international organisations. A central feature of the recommendations was the reference to the so-called Joinet Principles, and the rights of truth, justice, reparations (restitution, compensation and rehabilitation) and non-recurrence.6 The recommendations of this Symposium set the stage for formal moves towards transitional justice in Zimbabwe. This has built steadily under the aegis of the Human Rights Forum and its members, with basic research on citizens‟ views on transitional justice (RAU. 2009; Human Rights Forum. 2011). This has led directly to the establishment of a new, dedicated unit within the Human Rights Forum, the Transitional Justice Unit, and, spawned two international conferences (Human Rights Forum. 2012; Human Rights Forum. 2013), and then led to the establishment of the National Transitional Justice Working Group (NTJWG) in 2015, an initiative of 46 Zimbabwean civil society organisations. Staffed by eight elected “experts”, with the secretariat provided by the Human Rights Forum, the NTJWG has been developing principles and guidelines for a possible transitional justice process (NTJWG. 2015), holding public discussions, undertaking a wide range of advocacy, engaging parliamentarians, and preparing for engaging with the constitutionally sanctioned National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). The legal foundation for transitional justice has now been established in the 2013 Constitution through a National Peace and Reconciliation process. However, Zimbabwean civil society has clearly laid the foundations for the engagement. The question is whether it has been sufficient. As can be seen from this exceedingly brief and selective history about human rights in Zimbabwe, much has been done in what can be described as a “pre-transitional‖ period, and in a country where impunity rather than accountability has been the norm. In many ways, the work already done by Zimbabwean civil society and the human rights community may be seen as exemplary, but we ask in this paper whether there more that can be done, and what other steps or processes might have been missed as we strive to move Zimbabwe into a genuine transitional justice process toward the kind of democracy that is envisaged by the Constitution. Thus, this desk review addresses the following questions. What transitional justice processes and mechanisms are possible in a state where gross human rights violations continue to be perpetrated, where no genuine political transformation has taken place, and where the state is predatory, authoritarian, and violent? 6 See UN [1997], The Administration of Justice and the Human Rights of Detainees: Question of the impunity of perpetrators of humanrights violations (civil and political), Revised final report prepared by Mr. Joinet pursuant>to Sub-Commission decision 1996/119, United Nations. Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights. SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1 10