76:
241:(NPA). The document maintained that because the evidence supported the conclusion that the torture was widespread and systematic it should be regarded as a crime against humanity. SALC requested that the South African prosecuting and police services initiate an investigation into the torture, and argued that South Africa's domestic and international obligations in respect of international crimes compelled the authorities to do so.
252:, genocide and war crimes if the perpetrator is present in South Africa, even if the perpetrator is not South African and the crimes were not committed on South African territory. The SALC dossier stated that the Zimbabwean officials suspected of committing the torture regularly travelled to South Africa and so the country had jurisdiction under the ICC Act to investigate them.
248:(the ICC Act) had been enacted to give effect to the country's obligations as a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and so to enable South African courts to try perpetrators of international crimes as set out in the Rome Statute. The ICC Act empowers South Africa authorities to investigate and prosecute persons accused of committing
25:
282:
Judge
Fabricius found in favour of SALC and ZEF and held that the decision taken by the NPA and the SAPS not to initiate an investigation into the allegations of torture committed by Zimbabwean officials was “unlawful, inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.” The Judge set aside the
271:, requesting the court to review and set aside the decision not to investigate on the basis that the authorities had failed to properly consider SALC's request and that by refusing to investigate they were not giving effect to their obligations under the ICC Act and international criminal law.
295:
The judgment confirmed that the ICC Act and international criminal law conferred obligations on South
African authorities to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes. Judge Fabricius held that this obligation is not limited to crimes that were committed in South Africa
163:
291:
This case was the first case brought before a South
African court involving the interpretation of the ICC Act, and so was the first judgment to give content to the authorities’ obligations under that legislation.
308:(SCA) which referred the application for oral argument, following which the SCA will decide whether it will hear the merits of the appeal. Dates for the oral argument have not yet been allocated.
379:
245:
206:
226:
383:
304:
The NPA and the SAPS applied for leave to appeal the judgment, which was refused by the North
Gauteng High Court. The authorities then petitioned the
237:(SALC) documented the torture and set out the legal landscape in a detailed dossier which was submitted to the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit in the
46:
33:
422:
305:
152:
171:
234:
407:
427:
238:
283:
decision and ordered that the South
African authorities work together in reassessing SALC's request for an investigation.
256:
75:
38:
274:
The case was heard from 26–29 March 2012 at the North
Gauteng High Court, presided over by Judge Hans Fabricius.
268:
198:
86:
249:
146:
National
Commissioner of the South African Police Service v Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre
97:
Southern
African Litigation Centre and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others
194:
Southern
African Litigation Centre and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others
202:
259:(SAPS) – had taken the decision not to investigate the allegations contained in the dossier.
380:"South African Supreme Court of Appeal will Hear Zimbabwe Torture Case | Salc Bloggers"
222:
358:
255:
In June 2009 the NPA informed SALC that the South
African authorities – the NPA and the
345:
129:
416:
148:
359:"Regional Litigators Ask South African Court to Prosecute Zimbabwean Rights Abusers"
230:
167:
325:
229:, and detained and tortured scores of people. After hearing about this incident
164:
South African Police Service v Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre
69:
Southern African Litigation Centre v National Director of Public Prosecutions
267:
SALC and the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum (ZEF) launched review proceedings in the
24:
218:
18:
201:
on 8 May 2012. It concerned South Africa's obligations under
132:; 2012 (10) BCLR 1089 (GNP); 2012 (3) All SA 198 (GNP)
246:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act
207:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act
225:, the headquarters of the political opposition the
182:
177:
158:
141:
136:
125:
117:
102:
92:
82:
68:
408:Southern Africa Litigation Centre Case Overview
326:"Africa | Zimbabwe police raid MDC office"
8:
74:
65:
244:The South African Implementation of the
49:of all important aspects of the article.
317:
45:Please consider expanding the lead to
7:
235:Southern African Litigation Centre
14:
23:
37:may be too short to adequately
423:2012 in South African case law
239:National Prosecuting Authority
227:Movement for Democratic Change
205:and, in particular, under the
47:provide an accessible overview
1:
257:South African Police Service
357:Violet Gonda (2012-02-13).
444:
130:[2012] ZAGPPHC 61
73:
269:North Gauteng High Court
199:North Gauteng High Court
149:[2013] ZASCA 168
87:North Gauteng High Court
16:South African court case
306:Supreme Court of Appeal
250:crimes against humanity
153:Supreme Court of Appeal
428:Gauteng Division cases
328:. BBC News. 2007-05-26
168:[2014] ZACC 30
300:Further developments
172:Constitutional Court
106:8 May 2012
346:Text of the ICC Act
197:was decided in the
361:. Voazimbabwe.com
203:international law
190:
189:
159:Subsequent action
64:
63:
435:
395:
394:
392:
391:
382:. Archived from
376:
370:
369:
367:
366:
354:
348:
343:
337:
336:
334:
333:
322:
178:Court membership
113:
111:
78:
66:
59:
56:
50:
27:
19:
443:
442:
438:
437:
436:
434:
433:
432:
413:
412:
404:
399:
398:
389:
387:
378:
377:
373:
364:
362:
356:
355:
351:
344:
340:
331:
329:
324:
323:
319:
314:
302:
289:
280:
265:
233:-based NGO the
215:
109:
107:
60:
54:
51:
44:
32:This article's
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
441:
439:
431:
430:
425:
415:
414:
411:
410:
403:
402:External links
400:
397:
396:
371:
349:
338:
316:
315:
313:
310:
301:
298:
288:
285:
279:
276:
264:
261:
221:police raided
217:In March 2007
214:
211:
188:
187:
184:
180:
179:
175:
174:
160:
156:
155:
143:
139:
138:
134:
133:
127:
123:
122:
119:
115:
114:
104:
100:
99:
94:
93:Full case name
90:
89:
84:
80:
79:
71:
70:
62:
61:
41:the key points
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
440:
429:
426:
424:
421:
420:
418:
409:
406:
405:
401:
386:on 2016-03-12
385:
381:
375:
372:
360:
353:
350:
347:
342:
339:
327:
321:
318:
311:
309:
307:
299:
297:
293:
286:
284:
277:
275:
272:
270:
262:
260:
258:
253:
251:
247:
242:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:Harvest House
220:
212:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
185:
183:Judge sitting
181:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:
161:
157:
154:
150:
147:
144:
140:
135:
131:
128:
124:
120:
116:
105:
101:
98:
95:
91:
88:
85:
81:
77:
72:
67:
58:
55:December 2018
48:
42:
40:
35:
30:
26:
21:
20:
388:. Retrieved
384:the original
374:
363:. Retrieved
352:
341:
330:. Retrieved
320:
303:
294:
290:
287:Significance
281:
273:
266:
254:
243:
231:Johannesburg
216:
193:
192:
191:
162:
145:
137:Case history
96:
52:
36:
34:lead section
296:territory.
186:Fabricius J
142:Appealed to
118:Docket nos.
417:Categories
390:2012-11-01
365:2012-11-28
332:2012-11-28
312:References
263:Litigation
213:Background
110:2012-05-08
126:Citations
39:summarize
278:Judgment
219:Zimbabwe
121:77150/09
170:in the
151:in the
108: (
103:Decided
83:Court
419::
209:.
393:.
368:.
335:.
112:)
57:)
53:(
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
