Some countries like a South Africa has adopted the international crime prosecution Treaty (“the Rome Statute”). This means that under ordinary domestic law (the ICC Act)** the South African investigative authorities have the power to prosecute anyone who has committed torture, or a crime against humanity anywhere in the world, if the perpetrator is in the country (at any time when investigation is contemplated). Jurisdiction is also established irrespective of the perpetrator’s place if the victim is a South African citizen.
A top South African court has declared that the country's police and prosecutors are obliged to investigate allegations of torture and crimes against humanity committed by Zimbabwean government officials, against Zimbabweans, in Zimbabwe.
The court said the police were empowered to investigate the alleged crimes "irrespective of whether or not the alleged perpetrators are present in South Africa".
Sworn statements gave what the South African court called "a graphic picture" of torture allegedly carried out on members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change after a raid on its offices in Harvest House, Harare*: "They describe severe physical assaults being perpetrated, which included the use of truncheons, baseball bats, fan-belts and booted feet" the court said. "There are accounts of victims being suspended by a metal rod between two tables; of being subjected to water boarding; and of electrical shocks being applied to the genitals of some of them." (Exhibit 1)
The Court of Appeal said the question at the heart of the case was: "What business is it of the South African authorities when torture on a widespread scale is alleged to have been committed by Zimbabweans against Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe?"(Exhibit 2)
In effect the court decided that when South Africa signed the Rome Statute, and then passed domestic legislation enabling it to meet its obligations under the statute, it became responsible for investigating charges under the statute.
South African courts may not be able to try suspects unless they are present at their trial, but their absence from the country does not prevent police from investigating charges, the court found.
"One of the considerations," the court said, "was that the President of South Africa's role as mediator between the opposition and ruling parties of Zimbabwe would be compromised."
Under South African law, the government has only one more option before it is obliged to implement the Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling: it can argue that the case should be finally decided by the Constitutional Court.
The case was brought to the Pretoria* court by the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC) and the Zimbabwean Exiles Forum, many of whose members previously fled to South Africa after allegedly being tortured by Zimbabwean security.
“This decision is not just about Zimbabwe – it also sets a much broader precedent by ruling that South African authorities have a duty to investigate international crimes wherever they take place. It’s a major step forward for international criminal justice.”
The ruling, however, has unsurprisingly split opinion in Zimbabwe with members of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T)* largely praising the verdict, while those from the ZANU-PF** party discredit it as irrelevant, illegitimate and politically-motivated.
We can understand the legitimate concerns of the South African government. The undertaking of an investigation would generally be construed as being sanctioned by the government and as reflecting South Africa’s policy in respect of that country.
A number of other excuses were advanced for not initiating an investigation, including in several instances the names of the alleged torturers were spelt differently and appropriate investigations would have to be undertaken to properly establish the identities of all the implicated police officials.
In other words, as a conclusion, it would be problematic in trying to establish that when the police officers carried out the said acts of torture they knew that they were contributing to a wide spread and systematic attack on the MDC in order to further a political strategy of the ruling party. In the event of this not being established, the issue of a crime against humanity would fall away, and with it, any possible basis upon which the South African authorities could lawfully be involved with the matter.
The judge could not possibly uphold the respondents’ case, that in effect, the South African police force and investigatory authorities could not investigate crimes outside of South Africa. If that were right, the entire conferral of jurisdiction on South African courts to try perpetrators of international crimes who are not South African, and who commit their crimes outside of South African borders, would be rendered meaningless. It would mean that South Africa would never be able to hold international criminals accountable because, according to the Respondents, they were paralyzed to act. This was clearly not consistent with the purpose and object of the ICC Act.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. The Rome Statute established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
**South Africa’s International Criminal Court Act Countering genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
[ 2 ]. William A. Schabas. "South African Judgment on Universal Jurisdiction, Torture and Zimbabwe. "PhD studies in human rights. 2013. Blogger. http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2013/12/south-african-judgment-on-universal.html. *Harvest House, is a six storey building in Harare, Zimbabwe, located at 44 Nelson Mandela Avenue and Angwa Street. It serves as the National Headquarters of the Movement for Democratic Change party in Zimbabwe.
[ 3 ]. Thomas Collins. "South African police must investigate 'Zimbabwe torture'. "NewsAFRICA. 2013. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25129304.
[ 4 ]. William A. Schabas. "South African Judgment on Universal Jurisdiction, Torture and Zimbabwe. "PhD studies in human rights. 2013. Blogger. http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2013/12/south-african-judgment-on-universal.html. [ 5 ]. 4Christopher Gevers. "The Application of Universal Jurisdiction in South African Law. "EJIL: Talk!. 2013. European Journal of International Law. http://www.ejiltalk.org/universal-jurisdiction-in-south-africa/. *Pretoria is a city in the northern part of Gauteng Province, South Africa.
[ 6 ]. William A. Schabas. "South African Judgment on Universal Jurisdiction, Torture and Zimbabwe. "PhD studies in human rights. 2013. Blogger. http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2013/12/south-african-judgment-on-universal.html. *The Movement for Democratic Change was founded in 1999 as an opposition party to the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party led by President Robert Mugabe.
** The Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF) has been the ruling party in Zimbabwe since independence in 1980, led by Robert Mugabe, first as Prime Minister with the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).