serious human rights violations, not least in Zimbabwe itself. The difficulties of prosecuting large numbers of perpetrators and the need to encourage truth-telling and foster reconciliation might sometimes be seen as justifications for the adoption of amnesties, and the South African process of conditional amnesties is often invoked as a model to be emulated in this context. Even there, however, the process has not been without its severe critics, despite what was seen as a necessary compromise to facilitate 14 the political transition. REDRESS has consistently argued against the use of amnesties for serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, not only because of their illegality under international law but also because of the apparent considerable 15 opposition of victims to amnesties. Whatever the merits or otherwise of arguments in other specific situations, Zimbabweans at the symposium showed themselves to be aware of the dangers involved in amnesties, and their incompatibility with justice for 16 victims and with building a society based on lasting peace. The pre-Independence crimes of the UDI period and before were never investigated, and neither were those of the liberation movements. These violations and the subsequent impunities created the foundations for the human rights abuses experienced in the 1980s and beyond. Behind closed doors at Lancaster 14 An attempt to challenge the amnesty aspect of the TRC as being unconstitutional was unsuccessful: see the case of Azanian Peoples Organisation (AZAPO) and Others v The President and Others, Constitutional Court of South Africa, Case CCT 17/96, 25 July 1996, discussed in the REDRESS South African Country Study at p.8-9 http://www.redress.org/publications/Audit/South Africa.pdf 15 The perceptions that torture survivors have of reparations indicate the wide range of components involved. What is clear is that many victims see an important aspect of their quest for justice to include punishment of perpetrators, which precludes amnesties: see REDRESS Torture Survivors’ Perceptions of Reparation – Preliminary Survey, London, 2001: http:/www.redress.org/publications/TSPR.pdf It has been recorded that numerous victim surveys have found that almost everyone, and especially victims, want accountability through some form of punishment: C. Barton, “Empowerment and Retribution in Criminal Justice”, in H. Strang and J. Braithwaite’s (Eds.) Restorative Justice: Philosophy to practice, England, Ashgate, 2000, p.59. 16 See the Summary (Appendix II) p.vii: “Insisting that strategies must be pursued that will cater for the needs of victims of violence and that victims will be consulted about their needs and what the victims perceived as being the most appropriate mechanisms for satisfying their needs,” and “Understanding that lasting peace can only be achieved where human rights abusers are held accountable and meaningful steps are taken to try to heal the grievous wounds the violators inflicted on their victims and the society.” 7