II. Impunity and International Law The Zimbabwean government’s repeated failure to act against human rights violations by its security forces and others acting on behalf of the government has created a crisis of impunity. International human rights law places obligations on states to end impunity for serious human rights violations by undertaking prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations of violations of human rights law, ensuring that those responsible for serious crimes are prosecuted, tried and duly punished, and providing an effective remedy for victims.13 Impunity has been defined as the impossibility, in law or in fact, of holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable. De facto impunity takes place when the state fails to prosecute human rights abusers due to lack of capacity or political will. De jure impunity occurs when laws or regulations providing immunity or amnesty extend and strengthen the impact of de facto impunity by limiting or making it impossible to prosecute a perpetrator for human rights abuses.14 Zimbabwe has suffered from both forms of impunity, which has led to grave human rights violations by allowing past perpetrators to commit future crimes, and it has undermined faith in the government, the security forces, and the criminal justice system. By permitting a climate of impunity, Zimbabwe has failed to meet its obligations under international human rights law. International treaties impose on Zimbabwe the obligation to deter and prevent gross violations of human rights, and to investigate, prosecute, and remedy abuses.15 This also entails addressing the victim's rights to justice, knowledge, and reparations.16 13 See UN Commission on Human Rights, “Report of the independent expert to update the set of principles to combat impunity,” E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, February 8, 2005, para. 19. 14 The UN Commission on Human Rights has defined impunity as the “impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account - whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings - since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.” UN Commission on Human Rights, “Report of the independent expert to update the set of principles to combat impunity,” E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, February 8, 2005 para. A. p.6. 15 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, acceded to by Zimbabwe August 13, 1991; African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc.CAB/LEG/67/3 REV.5,21I.L.M.58 (1982), entered into force October 21, 1986, ratified by Zimbabwe May 30, 1986. 16 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation on States Parties to the Covenant, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004) , para. 15 ("States Parties must ensure that individuals also have accessible and effective remedies to vindicate those rights" protected by the ICCPR). See also Impunity Principles, principle I; Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law ("Reparations Principles"), adopted December 16, 2005, G.A. res. 60/147, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/147 (2005), principle 11. 21 Human Rights Watch | March 2011