Although civil trials to address past human rights violations have not been very popular in Africa, in Zimbabwe, NGOs such as the Human Rights Forum, ZLHR, LRF, and ZWLA have assisted victims of human rights violations through civil litigation with varying degrees of success. Several judgments have however not been honoured, especially those against the State. In cases involving non-state actors, most of the defendants have been either too poor to pay the damages or are politically connected to an extent that the matters never reach the trial stages in court. In cases handled by the Human Rights Forum where execution has been granted to settle judgments, some of the defendants were not found in possession of valuable property to settle the judgment or compensate for the harm suffered. Access to justice in Zimbabwe is a major challenge for ordinary Zimbabweans. The justice system in Zimbabwe is very complicated for an ordinary person without legal assistance. In seeking civil redress, victims face legal challenges with legislation such as the Prescription Act [Chapter 8: 11], which prescribes a period of three years within which a case against a private individual can be brought before the courts. This piece of legislation inhibits most victims from claiming damages and compensation for harm suffered during the different episodes of violence. Violence in Zimbabwe was mainly concentrated in rural areas where information and legal assistance was scarce. In addition limited mobility of victims and fear of further victimisation inhibited victims‟ access to legal assistance. By the time the violence subsided most cases had prescribed, nevertheless Zimbabwe has an exceptionally welldocumented history of human rights violations, and this will be of material interest in the operations of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission when finally established and operational. The State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8: 14], which states that State property is not executable, makes it difficult to enforce judgements. Additionally the Police Act [Chapter 11: 10], which prescribes eight months as the time within which victims of police crimes should bring their claims, protects police officers, who were the major perpetrators as state agents. However, it is possible to bring civil actions against the perpetrator if he or she can be identified, and this has been a well-used strategy to date in Zimbabwe (see Section 4.7.4) 4.6.5 Foreign Criminal Prosecutions Foreign criminal prosecutions refer to prosecutions that occur outside one‟s jurisdiction. Under universal jurisdiction, states that are party to the UN Charter and have domesticated22 this international legislation may prosecute and try the core international crimes: crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, slavery, piracy and war crimes. As was seen in Section 4, foreign criminal prosecutions were not common, but increased in the post-transition period, and were frequently used in respect of African countries and even more so in respect of countries that had military regimes. Under the principle of Universal Jurisdiction, a foreign state can claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting 22 Amnesty International reports that, in total, 163 of the 193 UN Member States “can exercise universal jurisdiction over one or more crimes under international law, either as such crimes or as ordinary crimes under national law.” See Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Survey of Legislation Around the World – 2012 Update (2012), p. 2 29