After two decades of practice, experience suggests that, to be effective, transitional justice should include several measures that complement one another, for no single measure is as effective on its own as when combined with the others. Without any truth-telling or reparation efforts, for example, punishing a small number of perpetrators can be viewed as a form of political revenge. Truth-telling, in isolation from efforts to punish abusers and to make institutional reforms, can be viewed as nothing more than words. Reparations that are not linked to prosecutions or truth-telling may be perceived as ‘blood money’ — an attempt to buy the silence or acquiescence of victims. Similarly, reforming institutions without any attempt to satisfy victims’ legitimate expectations of justice, truth and reparation is not only ineffective from the standpoint of accountability, but is also unlikely to succeed. Just as important, transitional justice should be designed to strengthen democracy and peace — these are the key goals for societies picking up the pieces after periods of mass abuse. These goals are more likely to be reached with active consultation of, and participation by, victims’ groups and the public. A society’s choices are more likely to be effective if they also are based on a serious examination of other societies’ experiences as they emerged from a period of abuse. This reduces the likelihood of repeating avoidable errors, which transitional societies can rarely afford to make. Finally, a holistic approach implies taking into account the full range of factors that may have contributed to abuse. A gender justice approach should be a central element, exploring how women and men experience conflict and human rights violations differently. The pursuit of gender justice includes: prosecutions for gender-based violence; reparations delivery to diverse groups of women and their families; memorials recognising women’s experiences; and institutional reform that serves human security needs and promotes women’s access to justice (see Module 4). Africa’s experience in transitional justice Zano pangwa uinerako. (Shona proverb meaning: ‘Seek a plan when you have one of your own.) Since the early 1990s, Africa has served as a vast testing ground for new policies to address impunity, seek truth and justice, and enable reconciliation in fractured societies. Although the results of these accountability efforts have been mixed and uneven, African experiences have contributed to advancing a plethora of domestic and international transitional-justice initiatives. Africa’s response to justice mirrors the upheavals of Latin America, which also suffered from false starts and political manipulation before building innovative and dynamic accountability mechanisms. Approaches have ranged from judicial mechanisms, such as international tribunals, hybrid courts, and domestic trials, to non-judicial mechanisms like truth commissions, reparations, and traditional or community-based processes. Various African countries have experimented with truth commissions with mixed success. For instance, Uganda had two separate truth commissions in the 1970s and 1980s to investigate the past. The first commission’s report was released in 1975, but the later commission’s report was never made public. In Ghana, a truth commission was used relatively successfully in a non-conflict setting almost a decade after the transition to constitutional rule and democratic consolidation. Finally, Rwanda and Mozambique undertook traditional community-based processes to foster reconciliation. Module 6: Community healing through reconciliation and transitional justice 99 6