TORTURE IN ZIMBABWE, PAST AND PRESENT one party State, the Government felt relatively secure and stated that it supported human rights. It even began human rights training for police and prison officers and involved a number of NGOs in this training. 49 The role of civil society, as it strove to develop a culture of human rights, was tolerated and occasionally supported by some Government leaders. 50 The judiciary maintained its independence and spoke out against torture, 51 and in a number of landmark judgments the Supreme Court showed that it was prepared to enforce the Declaration of Rights to protect individuals against state abuse. 52 However, the State regularly resorted to amending the Constitution to reverse the gains which had been achieved through the courts. 53 After both the 1990 and 1995 elections, amnesties were once more proclaimed for pre-election and post-election violence, resulting in those who attacked opposition supporters again going unpunished. 54 Although detention without trial had ended in 1990 when the state of emergency finally fell away, the draconian Law and Order (Maintenance) Act continued on the statute books into and throughout the second decade of independence. The State has not set up any independent body having strong powers to protect human rights. The Constitution in Section 107 provides for the office of the Ombudsman who is appointed by the President in consultation with the Judicial Services Commission. Section 108 sets out the functions of the Ombudsman which 49 The Legal Resources Foundation (LRF) in particular tried working with the police and prison authorities to inculcate a sense of the importance of basic human rights, producing training materials and holding workshops and seminars. 50 “ In order to effectively safeguard peoples’ rights, the Government needs to work closely with civil society especially non-governmental organisations”- Minister of Home Affairs Dumiso Dabengwa , speaking in Harare at a workshop on ‘The Media and Human Rights’ in April 1994: Legal Forum, (Harare), Vol 6, No 2, ( June 1994), at p. 4. Such comments were more lip-service than anything else, however, as the Government routinely showed its contempt for basic human rights, especially that of peaceful public protest and the right to form opposition political parties. 51 In one case a female apartheid spy had been stripped naked and sexually abused during interrogation. The state did not challenge the evidence of torture, and on appeal the Supreme Court took the torture into account in mitigation of sentence, reducing the period of imprisonment which the trial judge had imposed from 25 to 12 years: see S v Harrington 1988 (2) ZLR 344 (S). 1990 (2) ZLR 52 For example, S v Ncube & Ors 1987 (2) ZLR 246 (S) in which it ruled that the whipping of adults was unconstitutional; S v A Juvenile 1989 (2) ZLR 61 (S) in which it ruled that corporal punishment of juveniles was unconstitutional; S v Masitere 1990 (2) ZLR 289 (SC), 1991 (1) SA 821 (ZS) in which it ruled that solitary confinement and reduced diet as a punishment imposed by the courts, is no longer permissible; Conjwayo v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Another 1991 (1) ZLR 105 (SC), 1992 (2) SA 56 (ZS) in which it ruled that the deprivation of exercise to a prisoner constituted inhuman and degrading punishment; Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) v Attorney General & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S) in which it ruled that keeping prisoners on death row for years on end was unconstitutional. In all these cases the Supreme Court found that the practice constituted inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment and therefore contravened Section 15 (1) of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution. However, see the next footnote. 53 To reverse the ruling in S v A Juvenile (supra) the Government amended the Constitution by Act 30 of 1990 (Amendment No. 11) to the effect that corporal punishment of juveniles did not contravene the Declaration of Rights; similarly the ruling in CCJP v Attorney General & Ors (supra) was reversed by Act 9 of 1993 (Amendment No. 13) whereby the Declaration of Rights was amended to the effect that the delay in carrying out the death sentence was not per se unconstitutional. There have been numerous other Supreme Court rulings over the years which gave a broad interpretation to fundamental provisions in the Constitution, thereby increasing the basic rights of citizens, only to have these gains quickly disappear when the Government amended the Declaration of Rights to re-instate what had been ruled unconstitutional. Until the June 2000 general Parliamentary election the country was a de facto one-party State making it easy for the Government to amend the Constitution, including the Declaration of Rights, as this can be done with a 2/3 majority in terms of Section 52 (2a) of the Constitution. However, after the MDC almost won the election in 2000 the Government was unable to amend the Declaration of Rights as it could no longer garner the required level of votes in Parliament. Following the disputed March 2005 election it once again has a 2/3 majority, and significant Constitutional changes to retain Mugabe’s grip on power are now expected. 54 General Notice 424A of 1990; Clemency Order No.1 of 1995. Almost all the violence was directly or indirectly attributable to Zanu-PF. 10