Yale Human Rights and Development Journal, Vol. 7 [2004], Iss. 1, Art. 4 2004] Zimbabwean Human Rights Crisis on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. Due to both organizational constraints and preferred methods of operation, Human Rights First did not seek to engage in on-the-ground fact gathering at that time. Rather, staff relied upon reports provided by local sources and other human rights and humanitarian organizations working within Zimbabwe, and analyzed and channeled this information in order to attract greater international attention to the crisis. 34 Despite the significant amount of information on political violence and other rights violations available from Zimbabwean groups, it became clear during 2002 that there was still a real need to educate policy-makers, broader civil society actors, and the public around the world, in order to counter some of the misinformation emanating from the Zimbabwean government and its allies. As noted above, by smearing the reputation of local and international NGOs and claiming that groups such as Amnesty International are stooges of colonial interests, President Mugabe has had some success in shifting the focus of individuals who may care deeply about Zimbabwe from the abuses of his government to a macro policy debate on land, colonial rule and the West's questionable approach to African affairs. The importance to human rights advocacy of credible documentation and effective dissemination cannot be underestimated, and Human Rights First's efforts to play a greater role in getting the facts to the public on Zimbabwe became a increasingly central part of its work. Other international groups, including the International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, and Physicians for Human Rights, have also recognized the need for such reporting. The resulting series of high-quality, well researched reports, coupled with outstanding journalism from the evergrowing ranks of Zimbabwean and non-Zimbabwean reporters who have been forced to flee the country, have helped to build the foundation for subsequent advocacy at national, regional, and transnational levels. In addition to focusing on the critical need to get the facts out on Zimbabwe, international groups like Human Rights First have been required to assist local efforts to facilitate Zimbabwean civil society. By drawing attention to individual cases where civil society actors are harassed, threatened, or abused, these efforts afford a measure of protection to activists, and provide an indicator of the level of severity of the human rights crisis. The strategies employed to achieve this goal vary, but have been enhanced in recent years by technological developments that allow for the dissemination of information and the targeting of key governments for e-advocacy. Throughout 2002, Human Rights First sought to highlight cases of individual Zimbabwean activists and NGOs that were being singled out by the government for their role in exposing human rights violations, advocating reform or defending the victims of government violence. 35 In addition, it focused some attention on legislative 34 In channelling information provided by local sources, staff were always mindful of the security situation for local activists and organizations, and took this into account when attributing material. 35 See Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Advocacy Alerts, at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vol7/iss1/4 14