to be committed. To identify those responsible, and to show what they did, is to mark them with a public stigma that is a punishment, and to identify the victims, and recall how they were tortured and killed, is a way of acknowledging their worth and dignity.⁵² Counter arguments raised by other victims on the idea of a truth process Discussions with victims of human rights violations that have been in touch with the Forum have largely centered on the need for punishment that can only be delivered through criminal prosecutions. Several victims have expressed the need to know the truth but not at the expense of accountability and punishment for perpetrator. They have argued that perpetrators have an obligation to release any information they have, know or might know about certain rights violations they committed. Victims have pointed out that in most cases they know what happened and would not want the truth to be distorted by alternative storylines and narratives as they know the individuals who perpetrated violence against them. The Forum, in its consultations with the victims who have approached it, has noted that other options that have been put on the table include the need for the government to officially and publicly acknowledge in government documents and legislation that certain human rights abuses were committed and there is need to hold perpetrators accountable and provide justice to victims. Besides atoning the victims and survivors, such a gesture would serve as an important precursor to follow up judicial action if at all the Zimbabwe was not ready for a full-scale prosecution. The Forum believes that, with the necessary political will, an authoritative report of a special Commission set up for the crimes committed by the police in Zimbabwe can help the nation take the next step towards bringing perpetrators to justice. ⁵³ Even though truth-seeking bodies such as special Commissions in Zimbabwe have limited prosecutorial powers, the Forum is of the view that their broader mandate to focus on a pattern of events, including the causes and consequences of political violence, allows them to go much further in their investigations and conclusions than is generally possible in any trial of individual perpetrators. For example, truth-seeking bodies are usually able to reveal the truth about the state and its various institutions that carried out or condoned the repression – including the military and the police. In addition, by listening to victims' stories, perhaps holding public hearings, and publishing a report that describes a broad array of experiences of suffering, a truth-seeking body in Zimbabwe on the violations by the police would effectively give victims a public voice and bring their suffering to the awareness of the broader public. For some victims and survivors, this process would have a liberating effect. The controversial issue of divulging names when truth processes for the police are held One of the issues that continue to spark major controversy in Zimbabwe among most policy makers is the issue of whether members of the police and other state agents reigned before a truth-seeking process outside the criminal justice system would be willing to divulge such kinds of information. Victims are supportive of the view that naming names is part of the truth-telling process, especially in a country like Zimbabwe where it is clear the judicial system does not function well enough for perpetrators to be prosecuted. What stands between such confessions and that kind of truth is a plethora of legislation such ⁵² A Neier, “What Should Be Done About the Guilty? ‟, (1990) 37 New York Review Books at 32. ⁵³ See Security Council Resolution 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Session 3217th Meeting, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993) (establishing Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal); S.C Res. 955, 49th Session 3453dmtg., U.N. Doc S/RES/955 (1994) (establishing Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal). Anti-Impunity Report 27