46 protecting human rights defenders, lawyers, doctors and journalists; priority training in human rights laws and norms at all levels in society and especially in the police, army and security services; promoting codes of conduct and ethical norms by public servants, and in the police, prisons service, military, media, medical and social services, and amongst the staff of economic enterprises; monitoring and preventing inter-social conflicts, and resolving them; law reform. This list is very similar to that previously developed by the Sub-Committee of the Human Rights Commission of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as being essential to the combating of impunity87. However, it remains something of a failing that so much is written on behalf of the victims, and, perhaps even worse, decided for the victims in their absence. With this explicitly in mind, Idasa undertook a number of consultations with the victims of organised violence and torture in Zimbabwe, and this paper reports upon this process. Victims’ views of past human rights abuses: Looking at Zimbabwe’s history, there are countless human rights abuses that have occurred that have been left buried together with their victims, whose stories remain largely untold. During the UDI period, from 1965 through the 1970s, human rights abuses were rife as a deliberate tactic of intimidation and deterrence was directed at both the guerrillas and their supporters. There was need to maintain political power by the government of the day through the army and other security agents, and they needed to protect their own assets/property and other interests. The Rhodesian army was not the only party responsible for the abuses, as OVT was also perpetrated by the freedom fighters (ZANLA and ZIPRA) for various reasons. Some of the reasons identified by the participants for the gross human rights violations carried out by the guerrilla forces were: · To discourage sell-outs; · To instil fear, impart and nurture liberation ideology into the civilians; · It was a way of mass mobilisation especially in hostile environments such as the commercial farming areas; · It was their own culture of local governance; · Instilling discipline in the local community. No one was held accountable for these abuses as the Lancaster House agreement provided for amnesty for all crimes committed during the war. Is it necessary to go back as far as the 1960s to address these abuses in order to ensure that those who committed the crimes are held accountable? According to the victims, the answer is in the affirmative, thus affirming the recommendations of the Johannesburg Symposium. In the early eighties, there was relative peace, and human rights abuses drastically diminished as the nation celebrated self-rule. However, between 1982 and 1988, the ethnic tension between the Shona and Ndebele came to a head. This is the period referred to as Gukurahundi (the rain that washes away the chaff from the last harvest before the spring rains). Dissidents from Matebeleland went on the rampage killing civilians and destroying property. The government responded forcefully and appropriately in the 87 See again UN [1997], The Administration of Justice and the Human Rights of Detainees: Question of the impunity of perpetrators of humanrights violations (civil and political), Revised final report prepared by Mr. Joinet pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 1996/119, United Nations. Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1 IDASA: Zimbabwe at the Cross-Roads: Views of Zimbabwean citizens on democracy and transitional justice.