of Association and Assembly, Legislative Agenda and Commitments and Actual Election.  Most of the activities listed in the Road Map relating to the rule of law failed to engender consensus among all three parties .The two that did, (i) and (vi), were phrased in vague and general terms, with action to be undertaken by the Inclusive Government principals and timeframes to be determined by them. The following outlines the proposed reforms vis-à-vis the overall response to them emanating from the three parties; (i) concerning the Attorney-General and security force chiefs: The principals were to meet the officials concerned to ensure “full commitment” by the Attorney General, Commissioner-General of Police and heads of other security and intelligence institutions “to operate in a non-partisan manner consistent with the GPA”.  There were some efforts on the part of the MDC but none were successful. (ii) security forces were to be told to publicly pledge their respect for the Constitution, rule of law etc. No agreement reached over this and no action was executed. (iii) state-sponsored violence was to end. There was no agreement reached over this and no action was executed. However there was a reduction in overt violence during the elections (iv) deployment of security personnel for political purposes was to be stopped. There was no agreement reached over this and no action was executed. (v) a special Act for the Central Intelligence Organization was to be passed. There was no agreement reached over this and no action was executed.  (vi) impartiality of State institutions. There was no agreement reached over this and no action was executed.  The principals were to put in place mechanisms to ensure the impartiality and observance of the rule of law by State organs and institutions as required by GPA Article 13, including special training for the uniformed forces in human rights and objective, impartial performance of their duties.  Statements by senior police and military officers, and overall police and military conduct, justified the conclusion that there had been little, if any, serious effort to bring about the changes envisaged by these activities.  Zimbabwe subsequently passed into law a new constitution on May 22, 2013. The New Constitution subsumed some of the provisions in the GPA, which subsequently came to an end on 31 July 2013 when elections were held. On 22 May the Bill of Rights immediately came into force, while some of the constitutional provisions were staggered, with most of them coming into force at the end of the 7th parliament on 30 June 2013. Legislative incompatibility with the new constitution The new constitution contained an extensive bill of rights, which addressed the rights of arrestees and detainees as well as court procedures. Since the signing of the new constitution on 22 May, there was an urgent need to amend the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [the CP&E Act] to ensure that suspects and accused persons, i.e. defendants, in criminal proceedings are accorded the rights to which they are entitled under sections 50 and 70 of the new Constitution1. Accused persons have been entitled to these rights ever since the Declaration of Rights in the new Constitution came into force on 22nd May, but they are not yet reflected in the CP&E Act, which regulates the way in which criminal proceedings must be conducted.  Until the Act is amended, criminal trials conducted in accordance with its provisions are liable to be set aside on review or appeal on the ground that the accused persons were denied their fundamental rights guaranteed by the new Constitution. Under pre-trial Procedures, for example upon arrest, section 50 of the new Constitution gives people who have been arrested a number of important rights which are not reflected in the CP&E Act.  These rights, for example, include the right to contact relatives, advisers etc, the right to visitors, the right to 1 VERITAS’ Constitution Watch 35/2013 dated 23rd September 2013 2