JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 141 ____________________________________________________________________ (CIO) agents and soldiers, who were pressurising them to confess to the murder. The petitioners demanded in the petition that the accused “ receive proper medical attention immediately, that mistreatment of suspects and prisoners cease forthwith throughout the country, that an independent Commission of Inquiry be set up by the relevant Parliamentary Portfolio Committee to table its report within a period of three months from now, and that adequate disciplinary action be taken against those responsible.” They also registered their protest “ against the inhuman and unconstitutional treatment of ... Fletcher Dhulini and countless other suspects while in police custody.” They observed that “the entire nation is living in a state of fear of the very people who are charged with protecting us.” 82 For example, on 16 November 2001 a crowd of about 300 ZANU (PF) youths and war veterans, reportedly escorted by the police, went on the rampage in Bulawayo following the murders of Cain Nkala and Limukani Luphahla. 83 Standard 15 April 2001. 84 Herald 26 April 2001. 85 Herald 21 May 2001. 86 Zimbabwe Independent 24 May 2001. 87 S v Humbarume & Anor HH-148-2001. 88 [Chapter 11:17] promulgated on 22 January 2002. 89 [Chapter 10:27]. This Act was promulgated on 15 March 2002. 90 In its report entitled Zimbabwe The Toll of Impunity published in June 2002 Amnesty International called for the repeal of these Acts, which it says do not conform with international human rights standards relating to protection of human rights. 91 The term is defined broadly and vaguely so as to include any medium which transmits voice, visual, data or textual messages to an unlimited number of people; it covers advertising agencies, publishers and news agencies. 92 See secs 65 and 72 of the Act. Section 93 of the Act gave existing mass media owners three months within which to register (i.e. until 15 June 2002), but the Media and Information Commission has (illegally but sensibly) extended the deadline. 93 Sec 65(2) of the Act. This implies that a mass media service may be a company rather than what the definition in sec 2 states it is, namely a service or medium. Really the Act is very badly drafted. 94 See secs 71(1), 75 and 89 of the Act. So even if the information is true, a person must be given a right of reply if it impinges (i.e. touches) on his rights or interests. 95 Section 64(2) of the Act. 96 Ibid. 97 Sections 79 and 83 of the Act. 98 Section 80 of the Act. 99 Section 15(1) of the Act. 100 Section 15(2). 101 Section 16. 102 Section 5.