Archives for posts with tag: transitional justice

I had the opportunity today to hear two men speak of their experiences of repression in Cuba. I share their stories anonymously, as only the smallest samples of human rights abuses that have taken place in the country throughout several decades.

One of them had been a brilliant student, and as such, had been recruited during his first year in the university to join the communist leaders force. He turned down the offer, saying it didn’t interest him. His punishment was temporary removal from the university. Later he was admitted back, but they never lost sight of him. He was interrogated four different times, each lasting hours, for being suspected of dissenting activity, and was even threatened with death at one point (which could classify as torture under the UN convention against torture). During the last interrogation, he was told that they knew he wasn’t up to anything, but that fact that he thought differently was reason enough for them to keep a tight hold on him — so that he would not act on his thoughts.

The second man knows of two young men who were ‘disappeared’ not long after the Cuban Revolution for trying to fight against Fidel’s forces. No explanation was ever given, nor were their deaths confirmed by the government. This man also witnessed how two men were killed and buried arbitrarily.

Though there is some widespread knowledge about well-known dissenters being temporarily jailed in Cuba and protests being suppressed, there is little record or knowledge of the smaller acts that have taken place over the decades, those known by people who are unaware of international laws and their own rights and freedoms. As change comes to Cuba, as it inevitably will, questions of transitional justice will surface. Who will be held accountable for such crimes, if at all? How will trust be rebuilt within communities, a similar challenge seen in post-Soviet countries? How far back will they look – to the onset of the Revolution, to the crimes committed under previous presidents, or to more recent times? Yet unanswerable questions, but questions to keep in mind in the coming years.

 

Pablo Kalmanovitz specializes in the political theory of human rights and humanitarianism. Professor Kalmanovitz has written articles and edited volumes on transitional justice, post-war reconstruction, and the regulation of warfare, and is currently working on a book project on the history of the idea of post-war justice.

Reblogged from Justice in Conflict:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

Most readers will know by now that the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Court dismissed Libya's ruling National Transition Council (NTC)'s application to try Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in Libya. Saif, of course, was indicted by the ICC in June 2011 for his role in crushing the Libyan uprising in February 2011 and has been in detention since mid-November 2011. In this and the next post, I will offer some thoughts on the ruling, and the reactions and controversies it has stirred.

Read more… 1,268 more words

Libya vs. ICC - who has jurisdiction?

Reblogged from Justice in Conflict:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) conflict effectively ended for northern Uganda in 2006, after 20 years of suffering, when the LRA moved out of Uganda at the start of the Juba Peace Talks. Despite relative peace returning to the area, the multiple legacies of this conflict have still not been fully addressed. One of the most contentious issue is the question of how to deal with human rights violations committed by the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), as well as its predecessor, the National Resistance Army (NRA).

Read more… 1,596 more words

The gravity criterion of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Rome Statute § 46) is an interesting principle: crimes must meet a certain standard, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes, and must be widespread and systematic government policy. This means that UPDF crimes in northern Uganda will go unaddressed at an international level, unless the ICC determines that both requirements are met. For the rebuilding of the rule of law, ending the culture of impunity, in Uganda, these crimes will have to be addressed somehow, somewhere. If not at domestic courts, then where? While the ICC makes the valid argument that it must apply the law equally to all (its definition of an impartial Court), what happens to those crimes that will never be brought to court?

On transitional justice:

The fundamental problem [of transitional justice] is the sheer number of crimes committed.

I’ve always been a supporter of international justice because the only alternative is doing nothing…If you ignore these crimes, you are for sure to get a repetition…If you don’t do anything about these type of crimes, you are going to have revenge festering in the community which are going to resurface.

The question is whether we have a better world with transitional justice than without it.

On the moral compromise that must be made in applying justice to mass atrocities, since “justice” can only be applied to a few due to the sheer number of victims:

It’s fundamental in a democracy that victims are entitled to have the people that perpetrate crimes against them brought to court. Most human beings want acknowledgement of their victimization.

On Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda:

The three chief porsecutors of the Rwandan tribunal had to deal with was the murders committed by Kagame’s army in revenge against Hutus in 1994. It involved deaths of 10 to 20 thousand people at least. If the prosecutor announced an investigation into the RPF, it would have been the end of the tribunal. Kagame made it clear, he would have broken up all relationship to tribunal. Morally, they should have been investigated and prosecuted.

Fun Fact: Goldstone thinks Kagame is one of the most difficult people he has ever had to deal with, in part because he has little, if any, body language. According to Goldstone, it’s a brilliant way to get people to talk – sitting in a room with Kagame, who shows no facial expressions and says absolutely nothing at all, one feels forced to do all the talking.

—–

Justice Richard Goldstone, first chief prosecutor of the United Nations to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and chief prosecutor to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Discussion, April 5 2012
New Haven, CT

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.