1. Widening the Debate on Transitional Justice Options What do we mean by transitional justice?10 Transitional justice is premised on a belief that the demand for criminal justice is not an absolute, but must instead be balanced with the need for peace, democracy, equitable development and the rule of law. It also recognises that in contexts of transition there may be unique practical limitations on the ability of certain governments to adopt specific justice measures. Transitional justice focuses on five primary areas: (1) trials (whether civil or criminal, national or international, domestic or foreign); (2) truth-seeking and fact-finding (whether via official national inquiries such as truth commissions, or via international commissions of inquiry, UN mechanisms, or NGO efforts); (3) reparation (whether compensatory, symbolic, restitutive or rehabilitative in nature); (4) institutional reform (including legal and institutional reforms, removal of abusers from public positions, and human rights training for public officials); and (5) memorialisation and “collective memory”. The field also encompasses several related issues, including an examination of the dilemmas of impunity, and in particular the problematic role of amnesty during transition; and an understanding of initiatives aimed at engendering reconciliation. It is important to remember that the objectives and tools of transitional justice go beyond trying to secure formal accountability for human rights violations via trials and other forms of judicial sanction. Indeed, transitional justice goals are more holistic and include a commitment: to halt ongoing human rights crimes, to investigate the crimes, to identify those responsible, to impose sanctions on those responsible, to provide reparation to victims, to prevent future human rights crimes, to reconstruct State–citizen relationships, to preserve and enhance peace and democracy, and to foster individual and national reconciliation. Another distinguishing feature of transitional justice is the premium placed on balance and integration. For example, transitional justice does not argue for retributive justice at any cost, or insist on preserving peace at the expense of victims’ right to justice, but rather insists on balancing the different and competing objectives and interests in accordance with international law, local advantages and constraints, as well as rational and fair policy making. A victim-centred approach In a context of power imbalances, which are usually characteristic with respect to the position of victims and survivors, a distinguishing feature of transitional justice approaches is the emphasis on a victim-centred approach to dealing with a violent and repressive past. A victim-centred orientation is necessary both in terms of the processes undertaken and the results secured. Consequently, in every endeavour, it is essential to ask how the victims and survivors benefit (or not). The credibility and legitimacy of transitional justice mechanisms are often measured by the extent to which victims and survivors oppose or support them, and the degree to which they are able to participate in and benefit from them. This places a premium on communication and consultation, both with what might best be described as ‘organised’ civil society (i.e. structures and organisations such as NGOs, churches, etc.), as well as the general public and other groupings that are not organised. In many situations, a core priority remains the need to build responsive and representative victim groupings.11 10 The writer acknowledges the important contribution that the International Center for Transitional Justice has made and continues to make in developing a clearer understanding of the core content and parameters of what constitutes transitional justice. 11 ICTJ, ‘Background Paper’, pp. 2–3. 6