deaths of the four persons only arises after a competent court has pronounced that the actions by the state agents exceeded reasonable force that would have been applied in the circumstances and in the case of Lameck Chemvura it must first be proved that it was indeed the army officer arrested whose actions resulted in his unfortunate death. 79. The Respondent State notes that in the case of Beaven Tatenda Kazingachire, the State accepted responsibility and paid out compensation in accordance AC HP R with the laws of Zimbabwe „on an without prejudice basis‟. The Respondent State further notes that the actions of the state agents are however yet to be determined by a competent court on whether they were lawful, or not in the criminal trial. 80. The Respondent State points out that the death of Lameck Chemvura does not involve the issue of whether reasonable force was used or not against the deceased but is a question of the identification of the assailants whose actions were criminal and it is upon the conviction of the assailants that the issue of compensation may arise. 81. The Respondent State makes reference to G. Feltoe‟s book “A Guide to the Zimbabwean Law of Delict” (Second Edition) which authoritatively states the law regarding compensation for wrongful death. According to the Respondent State, it is clear that the law on claim for damages does not support claims for the wrongful death of a person per se. The Respondent State submits that for one to succeed in a claim for damages situations where persons are wrongfully killed, the claimant must prove loss of support. 82. The Respondent State points out that the domestic law provides for compensation for the loss of support and funeral expenses, but does not provide for loss of companionship or bereavement as is the case with the United Kingdom‟s Fatal Accident Act of 1976. It notes that in Zimbabwe, 20