I n s t i t u t e fo r j us t ice a n d r eco n ci l iat i o n a fr ic a pr o g r a m m e war societies that respect people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, and recognise victims’ rights to redress. Avoidance is no longer regarded as acceptable.2 It is now widely accepted that after a country has experienced war or conflict it is important for its citizens to examine and address the abuses that have taken place before taking steps to move forward. Experience has shown that without healing the wounds inflicted by past injustices, there is little chance of countries establishing a meaningful or lasting peace.3 Aryeh Neier argues that there are two crucial reasons for confronting the past.4 First, it recognises the worth and dignity of those victimised during a conflict. Wars and conflicts leave many people dead, and many survivors maimed, traumatised and reeling from a myriad of losses. Neier argues that failure to confront what has happened to these people implies that they do not matter, and that only the future is important – a situation which deepens their victimisation. There is a need to obtain the truth of what happened, to recognise wrongdoing, and to acknowledge the pain and suffering that survivors and their families have been through. Gutman and Rieff argue that this is important not only for victims, but that the general public should also be made aware of what has taken place during a conflict.5 The second reason proposed by Neier for confronting the past is because it shows that the rule of law is being upheld – that those who committed abuses will not be immune from society’s efforts to deal with its past. Before survivors can forgive and forget, the perpetrators of violence have to be held accountable for the parts they played in crimes committed in the name of war and/or politics. As alluded to by Neier, a process of transitional justice represents the first real test of democratic values for a country that is committed to moving away from war or repression. It offers an important opportunity for demonstrating the difference between an old regime and the new. Dealing firmly with those who participated in, and/or benefited from, human-rights abuses is one way of revealing the differences between the old and the new governments. Another way is for new governments to ensure strict adherence to the principles of democracy and the rule of law during the transitional justice process.6 If undertaken correctly, transitional justice presents a powerful opportunity to free a country from the negative aspects of its past. As such it is vital that the transitional justice mechanisms are conducted appropriately and in a context-specific manner, so as to heal the nation rather than do further harm. While perpetrators must be dealt with firmly, investigating and prosecuting crimes can be challenging, especially in developing countries where criminal justice systems do not function properly. Furthermore, prosecution of perpetrators does not address all the needs of victims and survivors. Their unmet needs can also threaten a country’s prospects of achieving justice and accountability. Taking into account these realities, the central objective of transitional justice is to confront past abuses in a holistic manner and to ensure that abuses do not recur. To address these goals, those involved need to understand the different aspects of justice – such as restorative, social and criminal justice (as explained later in this paper). They also need to be aware of the various mechanisms that have been developed to address justice and victimisation effectively. It is important to identify which mechanisms are most appropriate for the country in question. Both of these processes are important as they have the potential to lay the foundations for peace and justice in the future. 2 The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights summed up this sentiment in the opening address to the Transitional Justice Workshop on Rule-of-Law Tools for Post Conflict States, held in September 2004, declaring that ‘the preference for doing nothing is no longer an option’. [Electronic] http://www.unhchr.ch/hurricane.nsf [Accessed 17 February 2011]. 3 See Article 19 undated. 4 Neier 1997:99. 5 Gutman and Rieff 1999:4. 6 Kritz 1995:xxvi. 2