17 The War Victims Compensation Act (Chapter 22 of 1980) The War Victims Compensation Act was enacted in 1980 specifically to “provide for the payment of compensation in respect of injuries or death of persons caused by the war”. Its ambit may well cover all the issues related to torture detailed above, but makes no explicit reference to torture, and there is no reference to rehabilitation explicitly in its this definition. Eligibility Generally, a claim for compensation may be made by or on behalf of any person who has sustained injury or death caused directly or indirectly by the war.40 At first glance, the criteria for eligibility seem to be inclusive, and the act should apply to war veterans as well as civilians.41 This has been re-iterated recently by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act. 42 However, a careful reading of the Act proves it to be exclusive, since war is defined as “the armed conflict that occurred in Zimbabwe and in neighbouring countries between December 23, 1972, and February 29, 1980, in connection with the bringing about of, or resistance to, political and social change in Zimbabwe”.43 Also, the claimant must have a citizen at the time he received the injury.44 However, the war began as early as 1962,45 and, therefore, Zimbabweans who received injuries prior to 1972 are excluded. Furthermore, the Act’s coverage ends at February 29, 1980.46 Human rights violations occurred in Matabeleland after independence are excluded from compensation,47 as are the cases of war injury after 1980, such as landmine injuries on Zimbabwe’s border with Mozambique. Hence victims who suffered gross human rights violations before or after these dates are excluded. The landmine injuries are a particular anomaly, for these cases of injury are caused by ordinance placed there between December 1972 and February 1980, which is commonly accepted by the government, but nonetheless are excluded from claiming compensation. Those who suffered gross human rights violations in Matabeleland or the Midlands remain a politically problematic category. A claimant’s compensation is determined by the degree of disablement resulting from the injury48, and not by the type of human rights violation experienced, as in the UN Commission’s categorisation. The Act supplies a schedule of injuries that varies in the degree of disablement per centum. For example, loss of foot of tarso-metatorsal joint carries a degree of disability of twenty-five per centum.49 The Act’s guidelines only contain explict reference to physical injuries,50 and thus assessments of injury can cause problems. The First Schedule contains explicit criteria, whilst all injuries not so contained in the First Schedule are assessed at the discretion of the medical practitioner concerned. First, the schedule is contradictory to the purpose of the Act. The Act allows persons to claim compensation for Liberation War injuries. Then the Act defines injury as ill-health, physical or mental incapacity or personal injury.51 However, the schedule does not reflect any mental incapacities or personal injuries,52 and, as we have seen above, these are an equally serious consequence of gross human rights violations. Again, the Act may exclude any war victim who may have mental 40 Sec 4 , War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. supra 42 See Ministerial Statement on the War Victims Compensation Fund, Zimbabwe Parliamentary Debates, Vol.24, No.4, Thursday 10th July 1997. 43 Sec 2, War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. 44 Sec. 4, War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. 45 Ellert, H. The Rhodesian War Front, (1993) Gweru: Mambo Press. 46 Sec2, War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. 47 The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe, Breaking the Silence, (1997) The Legal Resources Foundation. 48 Sec 7(1), War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. 49 supra 50 supra 51 Sec2, War Victims Compensation Act, [Chapter 11:16]. 52 Sec 7, War Victims Compensation Act,[Chapter 11:16]. 41