background of the rule of law. The rule of law means that people are bound by the law in governance and administration. Everybody understands it and it is interesting to see the next steps. One can argue that the rule of law is one of the pillars of democracy. And there is also the idea that those people who are responsible for human rights violations should be held accountable and regime change should deal with those responsible for these violations through the rule of law. It is all too clear that politicians want to get rid of the past sometimes by providing amnesties. We all know that amnesties are a possible way of dealing with the past, no doubt about that. But one can also argue that amnesties are an abdication of the obligations to deal with the past and establish a new society. The other problem is that it creates bad laws in society because we also have the duty to prosecute. And Guatemala is a good example of dealing with the past. There was effort to deal with violations against vulnerable groups and I think the idea was excellent to have the truth commission so that people could talk of their experiences. On the other hand we also have the obligation to prosecute as this is found in treaties like the Genocide Convention, the Torture Convention, the Rome Statute. The Truth Commission in Guatemala was not an excuse to not deal with these kinds of human rights violations. Therefore, apart from Truth Commissions, there is also need for criminal procedures; the need to apply criminal law to deal with all kinds human rights violations, genocide, and war crimes. Therefore, there is need to combine legal procedures and other actions that are not based in law to address the past. That means a duty to prosecute and respect for that duty to prosecute. It is not only the application of criminal law that is important, but also the application of human rights law. Human rights mechanisms can be used to deal with human rights crimes committed in the past. About the shortcomings of legal processes for crimes that were committed in the past, I agree there are shortcomings because criminal law at first line deals with perpetrators and does not deal with the victims at first line. And the advantage of the truth commission approach is “Lets give voice to the victims”. And that seems to me a very important advantage of the truth commission approach. And I see this in the Balkans where criminal procedures have targeted the big fish and people ask, “Now that the big fish have been caught what about the victims?” Another advantage is that Truth Commissions are more flexible than legal procedures because legal procedures are bound by the obligations which are written down in international treaties. Truth commissions can apply case-to-case solutions to meet the requirements of the situations. Truth Commissions: the Best Practices 55