Prosecutions Participants noted that prosecutions within a transitional justice context would make people accountable for what they did. Questions were asked on the viability of having traditional justice mechanisms employed to deal with rights violations. Participants were keen on such processes but also felt that some of the traditional leaders had been heavily compromised because of their involvement in the violence and thus could not deliver objective justice. There was general consensus among participants on the need to have prosecutions for violations that have taken place in the past. What was contentious in all the areas visited by the Forum was the form the prosecutions would assume, who would be prosecuted, for what violations and by which adjudicating body. The retributive effect of prosecutions appealed to most of the participants who felt that before there could be any forgiveness and reconciliation the perpetrators had to be punished for their wrongs. However, various challenges concerning prosecutions were highlighted by the participants during the meetings. The participants noted the limitation of prosecution in the sense that it achieves a win-lose outcome, which is not conducive for national healing. The participants also noted the challenges that were created by the character and form of the current judiciary noting that it was under-resourced and that the bench had been heavily politicized. They also pointed out that while the International Criminal Court was a good initiative, it only tries the big time offenders like national elites and leaders leaving municipal courts to deal with small time offenders. It was pointed out that it can be an onerous task to gather convincing criminal evidence for events that occurred more than thirty years ago since the victims and perpetrators are now very old or dead. Such prosecutions may only be symbolic in this case. 27