The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES Beyond the contentious issue of land reform and the right to property under the African Charter, the mission also investigated allegations related to torture. The mission received ‘testimony from witnesses who were victims of political violence and other victims of torture while in police custody’.527 There were allegations of arbitrary arrests of the President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe, among others, and of torture of opposition leaders and human rights defenders. In its report, the Commission found that in many instances those responsible were ‘ZANU PF party activists’. However, on the strength of assurances by President Mugabe and other ZANU PF politicians ‘that there has never been any plan or policy of violence’, the Commission refrained from concluding that the violations constituted an orchestrated Government-sanctioned pattern. In this respect, it was evident that too much deference was granted to the State. A less equivocal finding was that there existed no effective institution to oversee the lawfulness of police action and to receive and investigate complaints against the police. Although there existed an Office of the Ombudsman, it had displayed bias in its activities; it was also under-resourced and mostly inactive, and delayed the publication of its reports. Consequently, it had lost public confidence. One of the Commission’s recommendations was the creation of an independent mechanism to receive complaints regarding police conduct. The politicisation of the Zimbabwean police force was also deplored. Youth militia, trained in ‘youth camps’, were reportedly used to fuel political violence. The Commission recommended their abolition. The Commission also referred to ‘elements’ within the criminal investigation unit who ‘engaged in activities contrary to international practice’. In order to improve the professionalism and accountability of the police service, the Commission recommended that the Government study and implement the Robben Island Guidelines.528 When the Commission eventually presented the report as part of its Sixteenth Activity Report, the Zimbabwean representative protested that his Government had not been given an opportunity to respond to the findings. Although the Commission disputes the factual correctness of this contention, the report was referred back to the Government for its comments. As a consequence, the Assembly for the first time refused to authorise the publication of the Commission’s activity report. The mission report was only authorised for publication after the Government had provided a response, which was included in the Commission’s Seventeenth Activity Report.529 527 ACHPR, Executive Summary of the Report of the Fact-finding Mission to Zimbabwe, Annex II, EX.CL/109 (V), para. 3. 528 See Robben Island Guidelines, supra note 63. 529 ACHPR, 17th Annual Activity Report. 120