5 Most of these would have occurred in the period covered by the War Victims Compensation Act, the period from 1972 to 1980, but none are expressly mentioned in the Act. However, torture is expressly mentioned in this American list, as is systematic racial discrimination, and thus there are grounds for seeing that reparations for human rights violations involves a broader range of events than war-related injury, which is the expression of the Zimbabwean legislation. An alternative list has been provided by the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission.7 This list may be described shortly as follows: Category A: A spouse, child or parent of the individual who suffered death; Category B: The individual suffered serious personal injury involving dismemberment, permanent or temporary significant disfigurement, or permanent or temporary significant loss of use or limitation of use of a body organ, member, function or system; Category C: The individual suffered sexual assault or aggravated assault or torture; Category D: The individual witnessed the intentional infliction of events described in Categories A, B or C on his spouse, child or parent; Category E: The individual was taken hostage or illegally detained for more than 3 days, or for a shorter period, in circumstances indicating an imminent threat to his or her life; Category F: On account of a manifestly well-founded fear for one’s life or of being taken or illegally detained, the individual was forced to hide for more than three days; Category G: The individual was deprived of all economic resources, such as to threaten seriously his or her survival and that of his or her spouse, children or parents, in cases where assistance from his or her Government or other sources has not been provided. This is a more explicit list of violations for which reparation may be sought, and was produced in response to the gross human rights violations committed by Iraq on the citizens of Kuwait. This is a useful categorisation, and, as will be seen , covers all the gross human rights violations that have been experienced by Zimbabweans, both during the War of Liberation and the disturbances of the 1980s’. There are other questions to be answered though in deciding upon reparation. As Lutz has commented, the issue of the guidelines to be adopted in providing redress is not simple, and requires some thought about reparation, compensation and rehabilitation (Lutz.1989). Her definition of compensation is helpful here: “that which is necessary to extinguish, as far as possible, all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which in all probability would have existed if that act had not been committed”(Lutz.1989.p201).8 This definition is useful since it allows a multiplicity of actions to be taken in respect of reparation, ranging from financial payments through the provision of medical and rehabilitative care, even to the payment of punitive damages. See United Nations (1994), “Report of the Panel of Experts Appointed to Assist the United Nations Compensation Commission in Matters Concerning Compensation for Mental Pain and Anguish”, Geneva: United Nations; See also United Nations Security Council (1992), “Determination of Ceilings for Compensation for Mental Pain and Anguish”, Decision taken by the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission, Fourth Session, Geneva, 20-24 January 1992. 8 See Lutz (1989), “After the Elections: Compensating Victims of Human Rights Abuses”, in E.L. Lutz, H.Hannam, & K.J.Burke, (eds), “New Directions in Human Rights”, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 7