allAfrica.com: Africa: 'No Peace Without Justice' (Page 1 of 3)

In the aftermath of massive human rights abuses such as the Srebenica massacre, the Rwanda genocide, or in Liberia and northern Uganda, the search for justice and reconciliation can be a controversial and dangerous business.

Atrocities in places such as Africa and the Balkans have increasingly put the focus on transitional justice, a range of approaches to address past massive human rights violations, that includes international tribunals, reconciliation commissions and truth-seeking measures.

While transitional justice may be necessary and important, judicial approaches have been accused of endangering fragile peace processes by threatening the perpetrators, while some fear that non-judicial means let murderers get away.

Transitional justice approaches are divided into judicial and non-judicial bodies. Judicial approaches include permanent bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), ad-hoc bodies such as criminal tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as hybrid local and international courts as in Sierra Leone.

Non-judicial approaches are dominated by Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs), for instance in South Africa, that focus on understanding the conflict and on reconciling victims and perpetrators. Transitional justice also includes institutional reforms, as of the judicial and security sectors.

In Liberia a TRC has been employed, as well as judicial and security sector reform, in the search for justice and reconciliation following that country's brutal civil war. IPS spoke to Dorota Gierycz, the former representative of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights in Liberia, about her experiences with transitional justice and lessons learned. Gierycz has just written a working paper on transitional justice as visiting researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI).

What does transitional justice mean to you, and what did you learn from Liberia?

These are situations where, on the one hand, there is a desperate need for a new beginning, and I believe that this is only possible when you also assess what happened and why it happened. This is why the question of justice, and therefore of allowing societies to move on, comes into the picture.

On the other hand this is a very controversial issue, because some very traditional approaches to peace building are that 'ok, we have a fragile peace, and if we start talking about the past, if we start looking into causes and talking about crimes which were committed, it will probably hamper reconciliation.' I am of a different opinion, because I believe that yes, there is a very difficult initial period when there is this kind of tension between justice and peace, but in the long run there can be no peace without justice, and if we just keep pushing things under the rug there will be no room for genuine understanding and consolidation of the society and democracy.

Transitional justice as a principle is a good principle, but it can go both ways depending on how it is applied in practice. I think we should really do our best to help transitional justice, both as a concept and as an institution, to help and not to divide.

Are TRCs too soft on the perpetrators of atrocities by relying more on public confessions and on reconciliation than on judicial punishment such as imprisonment?

I think that there is a misunderstanding here, because the TRC with which I was involved in Liberia explicitly mandated that grave violations of human rights -- genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity -- are excluded from any future amnesty. With the ICC deciding on doctrine, these categories of crimes are practically excluded from amnesties. The cases of Milosevic and of Charles Taylor show that the general international rules are still applied. (Former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic was prosecuted at the ICC following the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts, but died of natural causes before the end of the proceedings. Former Liberian president Charles Taylor is currently facing prosecution by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for his alleged role in the civil war there.)

What about the opposite accusation, that judicial proceedings risk reigniting conflicts? Take northern Uganda -- the ICC is refusing to drop its war crimes charges against the leaders of the rebel Lords Resistance Army even though they are refusing to give themselves up unless the ICC does so.

Look, for me this is where we started our discussion. There is a kind of tension, but I personally believe that there are certain very basic principles which are included in human rights standards, and which everybody in a way accepts because all these countries are members of the U.N. I think it is increasingly understood and felt that there are certain crimes which go beyond what can be forgiven and forgotten, because it would be very difficult for people on the ground to accept it.

I think there are some let's say lower crimes -- during the war people are killing each other, it's tragic -- but I still think that these sorts of crimes can be much more a subject of forgiveness. But when you get a situation where somebody is hijacking the country or hijacking a group and committing systematic atrocities and abuses against local populations, then I think that that should be a matter for the ICC. Justice should be delivered; these perpetrators should not be forgiven like those of some so-to-say smaller crimes.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories