Victims also noted that the truth commission approach seemed to offer an opportunity for a public platform for victims. Victims noted that what they hoped to receive from a truth seeking process was acknowledgement by the perpetrators and the state for the harm suffered. Issues around victims feeling respected and recognized kept coming up in the meetings. Most of the victims insisted on a public way of truth seeking because they felt that since most of the violations were done in secret, the perpetrators would feel secure knowing that the victims would not air their grievances or tell their stories in public. The participants pointed out that a truth commission would need to be formed by the people and not on their behalf. It was strongly put across that people, who have unquestionable integrity, are morally upright and with experience, should sit on such a body. The participants strongly held the view that people needed to control what the commission would do if it were set up. Participants recalled and mentioned the previous commissions set by the government whose reports were never made public, for instance, the Chihambakwe Commission set to establish what happened in the Midlands and Matabeleland Disturbances between 1983 and 1987. While some participants felt that these commissions can be formed and report to the parliament, they remained skeptical of parliament-controlled commissions which they viewed as close to political manipulation by political parties having the majority in parliament. To protect the integrity of any such commission, the participants suggested that their compositions should consist of representation from the civil society, judiciary, faith-based organizations and ordinary people. Participants also noted the limitations of the truth commissions and suggested that a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission was the way to go. The participants acknowledged the weaknesses of truth commissions and aired their reservations around such processes. It was noted that under truth commissions, perpetrators of past violence often do not own up. Often, political parties protect their henchmen as a way of covering up the truth and avoiding prosecutions. The participants accepted this problem and concurred that given such challenges, the process had to be gradually implemented with all sensitivities acknowledged. Given this point, some argued that for Zimbabwe to achieve transition to democratic governance and have a complete break with the past, transition would mean the dismantling of ZANU (PF) control of the state and other functions which do not necessarily need to be controlled by the party such as state institutions – the police, army, CIO, state parastatals and so on. The participants pointed out that as long ZANU (PF) still had power, it would stop all forms of transitional justice that would amount to punishment of their own. 22