of violence without the opportunity to seek justice.46 As a result, the amnesty law was perceived by the population as a way to reward perpetrators of violations and led to a social division of the country. The amnesty granted to the party in power (ZANU-PF) supporters in 2000 for their implication in political violence perpetuated the culture of violence in Zimbabwe.47 Several other national declarations of amnesties in the country benefited perpetrators of gross human rights violations and could then encourage future violations. According to Geoff Feltoe, the practice of amnesty in Zimbabwe "has been partisan and has engendered a culture of impunity".48As a result, the country is socially divided, and there is a deep mistrust between communities, individuals and State institutions. In this context, if an amnesty is to be taken today, it will inevitably be seen as a governmentsponsored act of violence and not as a way to restore truth and promote national reconciliation. Balance is thus to be found between the necessity to reveal the truth through amnesties and the need of victims to see perpetrators prosecuted for their crimes. An ICTJ report issued in 2008 showed that most victims prioritize prosecutions, especially when physical and sexual violations are at stake.49 Furthermore, choices must be made as to the appropriate balance between amnesty, truth-seeking measures, institutional reform initiatives, and reparations programs, as parts of a whole transitional justice system. The government must prove its goodwill and commitment to truth and reconciliation. In order to do so, the government must engage in a meaningful transitional justice process. These other mechanisms, together with criminal prosecution (at least for the most important violations), will aim at remembering and accounting for the past and at the same time responding to the needs of victims. Once this transitional justice process is initiated, amnesty could be part of it: the interrelationship between the various mechanisms is fundamental. The 2013 Constitution set up the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission which is mandated to "ensure post-conflict justice, healing and reconciliation, to develop and implement programs to promote national healing, unity and cohesion in Zimbabwe and the peaceful resolution of disputes, to bring about national reconciliation by encouraging people to tell the truth about the past and facilitating the making of amends and the provision of justice".50 The authority of this institution must be strengthened so that it can effectively fulfill its tasks. Finally, and most importantly, before seriously considering amnesty as part of the country’s transitional justice journey, the population, civil society organizations should be consulted along with community-based and faith-based organizations, student bodies, churches, academia, independent commissions, donor agencies, traditional leadership, political parties to initiate dialogue around the issue. 46 To Forgive and Forget: How Reconciliation and Amnesty Legislation in Afghanistan Forgives War Criminals while Forgetting their Victims Sara L. Carlson ISSN: 2168- Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs Volume 1 | Issue 2, November 2012 47 Human Rights Watch (2002) Zimbabwe: Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe. Human Rights Watch, 14(1A). 48 Feltoe, Geoff (2004) The Onslaught Against Democracy and Rule of Law in Zimbabwe in 2000. In Harold-Barry, David (ed.) Zimbabwe: The Past is the Future: Rethinking Land, State and Nation in the Context of Crisis. Harare: Weaver Press. 49 International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). 2008. Southern African Regional Assessment Mission Report Zimbabwe. Unknown: ICTJ. http://m.idasa.org/media/uploads/outputs/files/Transitional%20Justice%20in%20Zim babwe%20Workshop.pdf 50 Zimbabwe's Constitution of 2013, section 252 10