10/05/2012 - Myclipp

The New York Times/ - Politics, Ter, 15 de Maio de 2012
CLIPPING INTERNACIONAL (Supreme Court)
A Landmark Ruling in South Africa
For the past decade, South Africa has been the
preferred vacation spot, shopping destination and
international transit hub for members of the tyrannical
and murderous government ruling its northern
neighbor, Zimbabwe — a government that has rigged
elections, beaten and killed opposition activists and
ruined a once thriving economy. All of this could now
change because of a landmark legal decision.Last
week, the High Court in Pretoria, South Africa’s
administrative capital, handed down a historic
judgment. It ordered South African authorities to
investigate and prosecute members of Robert
Mugabe’s government who had tortured their political
opponents. Under South African law, the police are
obliged to investigate evidence of a crime against
humanity, wherever it occurs, if the rule of law does
not exist there, as is the case in Zimbabwe. The ruling
has profound implications. It could cement South
Africa’s commitment to protecting human rights and
broaden the application of universal jurisdiction, which
is the ability of countries to prosecute people who
committed certain egregious crimes outside its
borders. Unfortunately, the South African authorities
want to sidestep it and are reportedly preparing an
appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which
oversees the High Courts. Overturning the ruling would
be a disastrous setback, and all those who care about
human rights in Africa should pressure President
Jacob Zuma of South Africa to let the decision stand.
The case began in early 2008, when lawyers gave
South African government prosecutors a dossier
containing evidence that 17 Zimbabweans, some of
whom now live in South Africa, had been tortured.
They had been seized by Mr. Mugabe’s police in
Zimbabwe during a raid of the main opposition party’s
headquarters. The police then tortured them with
electric shocks, mock executions and simulated
drowning. Inside the dossier were the victims’ sworn
statements, corroborating affidavits from witnesses
and doctors and the identities of the alleged
perpetrators. Yet the South African government
prosecutors have so far refused to investigate these
allegations, overruling the recommendations of the
prosecutor in charge of the case. They tried to argue
that such an investigation was impractical, and that it
would complicate diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe
at a time when President Zuma was supposed to be
mediating between Mr. Mugabe and the opposition.
The Pretoria High Court threw out all these objections,
and said that the South African police and prosecutors
had acted unconstitutionally by letting political
considerations stop them, and that they were obliged
to investigate. Although South African prosecutors
cannot try the perpetrators in absentia, the case will
still have a galvanizing effect on the situation in
Zimbabwe. Anyone there who is under investigation
will now risk arrest by coming to South Africa, a
country frequented by the Zimbabwean elite for
shopping, medical treatment, catching international
flights or visiting their vacation homes in Johannesburg
or Cape Town. Already there is speculation about who
is on the confidential suspect list. It is believed to
include midranking and senior police officers, and
members of the military council that essentially runs
Zimbabwe for Mr. Mugabe. But future cases may reach
higher, as South Africa’s laws could trump diplomatic
and sovereign immunity, which means sitting heads of
state could be potentially vulnerable, too — although
they would have to be on South African soil to face
arrest. This ruling would have a far greater impact than
the current American and European Union sanctions,
which impose a travel ban and asset freeze on Mr.
Mugabe and his inner circle, who still routinely manage
to travel to United Nations gatherings in the United
States and Europe by exploiting diplomatic
exemptions. The most immediate effect would be on
the behavior of Mr. Mugabe’s enforcers in the run-up
to the next elections, which are due to take place
sometime in the next year. During the 2008 elections,
hundreds of opposition supporters were killed and
thousands tortured, a period Zimbabweans refer to as
“The Fear.” There are already signs of an uptick in
political violence as the next election approaches. But
the fact that the perpetrators of violence can no longer
act with complete impunity should make many of them
think twice. All efforts should now be brought to bear
on Mr. Zuma and the South African government to
dissuade them from appealing the verdict. South
Africa’s powerful trade union movement, Cosatu,
which is allied with the ruling African National
Congress, should strenuously lobby Mr. Zuma for this
law to be honored, as should the lively South African
media. Likewise, all nations that care about countering
crimes against humanity should pressure South Africa
to accept the court’s decision. By letting this judgment
stand, Mr. Zuma’s government has a historic
opportunity to show its critics that it has a genuine
commitment to human rights. If, however, South Africa
seeks to reverse the ruling, it will be a tragedy for
Zimbabwe’s many torture victims, past and future.
Peter Godwin is the president of the PEN American
Center and author, most recently of “The Fear: Robert
Mugabe and the Martyrdom of Zimbabwe.”
288