39 consequences of the colonial period that excuse human rights violations62. The modern discourse on human rights, best exemplified in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, clearly draws no line through history, rejects impunity in any form, and requires that all human rights violations receive legal examination63. Actually, on this view, all of history can be viewed through the human rights lens, with the only impediment being the reluctance of governments’ to open themselves to such scrutiny. Pragmatically, however, some line must be drawn at some time; certainly legally it is impossible to return through time to obtain the kinds of evidence that is needed to make judgements about the behaviour of individuals and governments. For example, whilst it does seem on the historical evidence that the Zulu imperial campaign of the 19th Century would accord with modern definitions of genocide, it would be impossible to provide the kinds of evidence that would allow courts to rule on this. However, where both the victims and perpetrators still live, it is not so difficult a task for legal processes to take place. Thus, it does seem inevitable that the lines will be drawn by the natural life span of the victims and perpetrators, but this is less problematic today when there is a new appreciation of the importance of accountability, and a correlated determination to avoid impunity. There are very encouraging signs, in the past decade particularly, that accountability for gross human rights violations is becoming more common than the endless granting of impunity64. Clearly it would be strengthened even more were the United States of America to decide to accede and ratify all the human rights instruments of the past 5 decades, but the aberration of the United States’ failure to do so is countered by the clear trend all over to enforcing these human rights standards. For Zimbabwe currently, it is difficult to see whether any form of accounting can take place for the human rights violations of the distant past and the settler period. The land invasions and confiscations that have taken place since 2000 could be viewed as a form of accounting for some of the past, but, since these have taken place mostly in disregard of the country’s own laws, it is doubtful that they provide any useful precedent for any kind of human rights accounting. It is also the case that the possibility of any accounting for the past, and this should include the period from 1965 to the immediate present, is a direct threat to the sitting government, and this bedevils all current political processes; from the holding of elections to any process of negotiating for a political transition. Political transitions are the most problematic times for the victims of organised violence and torture, leading usually to what one commentator has called the “Sarajevo joke”65. Too often political transitions are negotiated away by the political elites, and the victims remain silent bystanders, forgotten both by history and the law. As indicated above, this trend is slowly being reversed, but the trend is slow. In the case of Zimbabwe, impunity has been the rule and not the exception, notwithstanding the furore over land rights, and the victims have yet to have their say. There has been no substantive accounting 62 There is clearly a very complex position to be understood in respect of land and injustice, and this has been well dealt with a number of monographs. See Hammar et al (2004) above. 63 See particularly 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 SubCommission decision 1996/119, United Nations. Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1 64 See Robertson, G (2000), Crimes Against Humanity. The Struggle for Global Justice, LONDON: PENGUIN. 65 As Geoffrey Robertson expresses this “joke”, "When someone kills a man, he is put in prison. When someone kills twenty people, he is declared mentally insane. But when someone kills 200,000 people, he is invited to Geneva for peace negotiations". See Robertson, G above. IDASA: Zimbabwe at the Cross-Roads: Views of Zimbabwean citizens on democracy and transitional justice.