to a number of transitional justice processes and mechanisms in the previous sections, but here we will deal with such processes and mechanisms in greater detail and their application within the Zimbabwean context in the period of time under present review. 4.7.1 Amnesties Zimbabwe has a history of the use of amnesties. The transition from settler rule was marked by formal amnesty, granted firstly by the British government when it assumed power over the country in 1979,29 and this was subsequently ratified through new amnesty by the independent Zimbabwe government.30 These amnesties were celebrated as part of the reconciliation process initiated by Prime Minister, Robert Mugabe, and were widely lauded internally and externally. In truth there was a logic to these amnesties as all sides in the bitter civil war had committed serious gross human rights violations, and it was a sine qua non for peace that there would be no retribution. However, the reconciliation process lasted a mere two years before there was extreme violence in the dealing with a dissident threat in the southern half of the country again an amnesty was passed to end the Gukurahundi episode.31 Again, this was touted as a process of reconciliation, but this was disingenuous this time as a mere handful of dissidents qualified for amnesty whilst extremely large number of security personnel, intelligence operative and political party members were implicated in gross human rights violations (CCJP & LRF. 1997). Thus, this amnesty is a formal disguise for impunity for what many commentators have described a crime against humanity and or genocide. The 1997 process has set the trend for future episodes of gross human rights violations. Following the violent elections in 2000, the President, using Presidential Powers, passed an amnesty for all violations that took place during the elections, excluding only murder, rape and crimes involving fraud.32 This was repeated for the violent elections in 2008.33 This gave immunity from prosecution to all that were convicted of torture and abductions, again excluding murder, rape and fraud. In addition to these, there have a number of Presidential Pardons that have excused serious human rights violations, but some have had the effect of releasing ordinary criminals or releasing prisoners with life threatening or terminal illnesses. Overall, amnesty, apart from the necessity to end a civil war, has been used repeatedly as a device to excuse gross human rights violations, and, in particular, to obviate scrutiny of the state‟s involvement. It should also be pointed out that this has been complimented by the burying of crucial commissions of inquiry, such as the Chihambakwe Commission report on the violations during Gukurahundi. Thus, as Human Rights Watch and others have pointed out, Zimbabwe will remain bedeviled by repetitive cycles of violence and impunity until the problem of impunity is addressed (HRW. 2011; Reeler. 2000). 29 Ordinance 3/79 (date of commencement, 21 December 1979), and Ordinance 12/80 (date of commencement, 21 March 1980). 30 Amnesty Act (Chapter 9:02) and Amnesty (General Pardon) Act (Chapter 9:03) respectively. 31 Clemency Order No. 1 of April 18, 1988, 32 Clemency Order No. 1 of 2000. 33 Clemency Order No. 1 of 2008, issued in June 2008. 37