were thus two sets of data for every country in the data set: the actual number of transitional mechanisms that were applied for each country, bearing in mind that were was considerable variability, and a simple binary score – mechanism present or absent – also for each country. This allowed for simple quantitative analysis as well as more nuanced descriptions. Where possible, simple analyses of frequencies were undertaken, and tests of significance also. The quantitative data base was then used as a guide for developing short qualitative descriptions of each of the transitional justice mechanisms. These are brief by choice, as the literature on each of these countries was extensive, and the intention here was to provide descriptions to underpin the quantitative analysis rather than serve as comprehensive qualitative analyses as a detailed analysis of 58 countries was beyond the scope of this study. However, it was our intent to provide a fair overview of the contribution of the various transitional justice mechanisms from countries moving from authoritarian regimes and governments. 4. International Experiences with Transitional Justice in pre-transition periods 4.1 Overall Quantitative Findings:9 Our first finding for the all countries that had transitioned from authoritarian rule is that there were no statistical differences between the large data set provided by ITJDBP and the cleaned set, so we can have confidence that the selection of the latter due to the different cut-off date was not producing a skewed sample. The only marked difference between the two groups was the greater frequency of civil war in the pre-1990 countries. Table 1: Type of Authoritarian regime10 % Civil war 5 Civilian-Individual 15 Civilian-Institutional 31 Military-Individual 29 Military-Institutional 20 Regarding the cleaned set, it can be seen in the table that the pre-transition regimes had a variety of different forms of authoritarian regimes. There were few marked differences between the various types. The average length of these regimes was 22 years, but most European regimes had existed for lengthy periods. 9 Here note that nine countries had more than one transition - Albania, Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau, Ghana, Haiti, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, and Sierra Leone. We chose the last transition for this analysis. 10 Whilst civil war needs no explanation, the other types do. The distinction between “individual” and “institutional” is simply that the former is as the term suggests rule by an individual who might be either a civilian or a military ruler. The latter is reserved to one-party state (civilian-institutional) arrangements or military juntas (military-institutional). 13