Thirdly, whilst the Government has the duty to maintain law and order, if Government responds to public dissatisfaction with brutal repression or unrestrained and indiscriminate use of force, then it is likely that there will be increasing tension and, probably, counter violence. Even where there is unrest and disorder, there are still basic internationally recognised constraints on the use of force to ensure that fundamental rights are not unnecessarily and unjustifiably violated. Here it is important to note that the Zimbabwe Republic Police has made no attempt to investigate abuses, and the single case that we have been able to follow up indicates rather a reluctance, even obstructiveness, by the ZRP to investigate. Fourthly, these international instruments categorically lay down that political and civil unrest may not be used as justifications for human rights violations. One of the underlying reasons for this approach is that if human rights violations are permissible during times of civil unrest many human rights abuses will be likely to be committed and this will only serve to worsen the situation rather than solving the problems. The use of excessive force is thus not only illegal, but will also lead to more people feeling aggrieved, especially where innocent persons are affected. For the same reasons, basic safeguards to ensure that persons brought before the courts are fairly dealt with must not be dispensed with during times of civil unrest. Fifthly, on 9 December 1997, the police used indiscriminate force against demonstrators, who at least initially were exercising their lawful right to demonstrate peacefully. Rather than facilitating peaceful protest, the police created the very conditions that allowed criminal elements to exploit the situation to engage in unlawful acts. However, when these unlawful activities occurred, the police obviously had to respond and take appropriate action. Appropriate action was not, however, the use of indiscriminate or unrestrained force as advocated by the responsible Minister. The use of inappropriate force against legitimate protest probably created strong resentment against the ZRP, and this was another factor that led to the escalation of violence in January 1998. However, when the Food Riots started on 19 January 1998, the law enforcement agencies were faced with the unenviable task of trying to contain large scale violence and to protect people and property from attacks. It is evident that the police did not have the capacity to contain the situation and that additional resources had to be called in. The Government was thus forced to call in the army. This led to the situation being brought under control, but not before a number of people had been killed or injured by the use of firearms, some of whom were innocent civilians. Regrettably the Minister of Home Affairs, by publicly stating that the police would not hesitate to shoot people engaged in looting or trouble-making, seemed to send a message to the law enforcement agencies that they should use maximum force on an indiscriminate basis. Thus instead of fatal force being reserved as a last resort measure where there was no other option, the impression was created that shooting would be resorted to whether or not it was necessary and justified. Sixthly, the involvement of the military in the aftermath of the Food Riots was very questionable. Soldiers are not trained to investigate crime. The nature of their training makes them entirely unsuitable for use in this role. The reports received clearly establish that army personnel took very brutal measures against people. Some of this brutality was aimed at forcing people to confess to looting; some was aimed at intimidating people. After people were beaten, there were often verbal warnings that they would receive even worse treatment if they caused any further trouble. It was not only the army that used these strong arm tactics. There have been many reports of police officers unlawfully using beatings and torture to obtain information about the whereabouts of looted property and to extract confessions of looting. The police and the army used dragnet methods to try to locate looted property and those responsible for this. In the worst affected areas house to house searches were conducted without warrants: this is confirmed by the cases being represented by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, and also by the reports from the residents of Mabvuku. Whilst this may have led to the arrest of some wrongdoers, it also resulted in the harassment of many persons who had not been involved in any looting. Arrests were also made on a dragnet basis leading to many innocent