REDRESS/AMANI The role of a victim or complainant in criminal proceedings is limited to that of giving evidence if called to do so by the State. In terms of Part XIVA (Protection of Vulnerable Witnesses) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], the court has the power to vary the normal procedure of a witness giving direct oral evidence in open court in the presence of the accused. Section 319A provides that ‘if it appears to a court in any criminal proceedings that a person who is giving or will give evidence in the proceedings is likely to suffer substantial emotional stress from so doing, or to be intimidated, whether by the accused or any other person, or by the nature of the proceedings or by the place where they are being conducted, so as not to be able to give evidence fully and truthfully ’ it can adopt a number of measures to ameliorate the problem. These measures include appointing an intermediary and/or a support person to assist the witness, and/or arranging for the witness to give evidence from a different position either in or outside the presence of the accused.114 There is no witness protection scheme to re-locate witnesses after a trial, or to give them new identities. III.3 . Practice: Investigation and Prosecution of Torture A. Before Independence The extent of torture during UDI has been dealt with above. 115 After the passing of the Indemnity and Compensation Act 45 of 1975 (which was retroactive to 1972) there was no legal basis to bring to book perpetrators involved “ in the suppression of terrorism” , which in practice meant torturers in any political case in the widest possible sense. During the 1970s the attention of the police and prosecutors was dominated by the war, and there was thus little if any reason for the regime to investigate and prosecute torturers involved in ‘ordinary’, that is, non-political cases, either. The vast majority of persons in custody were black, the whole system was based on institutionalised racism, the police were white or white-controlled, and the victims of torture were denied basic human rights whether or not they became embroiled with the police. It is little wonder that any investigations and prosecutions for torture of black persons were rare, even in ostensibly ‘non-political’ situations.116 Violence and racism were inherent in the system. 117 At all times before independence, torture was used to extract confessions or to gather information in the pursuit of ‘ordinary’ as well as ‘political’ crime. The only real persons in the Magistrates Court are undefended by lawyers and are obliged to represent themselves. There is no effective legal aid system or public defenders office. 114 The court can adopt these procedures, and others, either on application or mero motu. If the witness is to give evidence from another room provision has to be made for the accused to hear or see the witness through closedcircuit television or some such means. See generally Sections 319A-319H. In practice use is made of Part XIVA mainly in sexual assault cases involving juvenile victims who give evidence from a special room which is videolinked to the court. 115 See above I.2.A. and I.2.B. 116 In racist Rhodesia the distinction between political and non-political crime was in any event artificial. The black majority were denied basic civil, political, cultural, social and economic rights, and in such a context every facet of life had a clear political dimension. 117 “ One of the main results of 90 years of colonial laws was that ordinary blacks came to see the law as their enemy” : Breaking the Silence (loc. sit) at page 25. See also Individual Freedoms & State Security in the African Context: The Case of Zimbabwe, John Hatchard, Baobab Books, 1993, at p. 73, who quotes the following: “At Alexander Mashawira’s inquest in 1965, the Salisbury magistrate confessed that the method of torture used in the prison cells was so sophisticated that it reminded him of Nazi Germany.” 21