Part I: Preliminary The preliminary remarks introduce the purpose and interpretive definitions of the NPRC Bill. This is positive because the descriptive definitions guide the Commission and other entities responsible or bound by the Commission’s enabling legislation or activities. However, Section 2 of the Bill omits important informative definitions. Such definitions include; a) The definition of ‘victim’ b) The definition of ‘perpetrator’ c) The category of forms of serious violations that requires investigations such as –murder, abduction, forced disappearance, rape, aggravated sexual assault and those that only need mediation / reconciliation efforts. Every legal mandate underpinning the establishment of Reconciliation Commission should establish types of violations to be investigated. The Peruvian Commission used the term “torture and other serious violations” to allow cases of sexual violations to be investigated as well without being explicitly noted in the Act4. The Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission Act5 and the Nepalese Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, includes types of violations to be investigated. The Nepalese law include looting, possession damage or arson of private or public property as ‘gross human rights violations’ while the Kenyan law goes further to include crimes such as extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of populations and genocide among other cases. Therefore, Heal Zimbabwe recommends that in addition to the available definitions, the Bill should also expand its definitional scope to integrate the types of violations to be investigated. This will help in shedding more clarity on the type of violations which the Commission will investigate/cover. Clarity on the definitions will also help in outlining key definitions that will be common to the work of the NPRC. Part II: National Peace and Reconciliation Commission Commissions established to address past violations and facilitate healing need to be credible. Usually “Societies emerging from authoritarian rule may have become accustomed to ineffective or disingenuous official inquiries established to hide evidence of crimes.”6 Therefore this credibility can be achieved by selecting members with high moral and professional standing, guarantee of independence and non-political interference as well as transparent investigative procedures. 4 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación), created by Supreme Decree N° 065-2001-PCM [Peru], June 4, 2001. 5 Kenya: The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission Act No. 6 of 2008, page 5. 6 Eduardo González and Howard Varney, eds., Truth Seeking: Elements of Creating an Effective Truth Commission. (Brasilia: Amnesty Commission of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil; New York: International Centre for Transitional Justice) 2013. 2