APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 94 94 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL Scholars and practitioners hold divergent views concerning what elements constitute reconciliation in post-conflict situations. This in turn has given rise to different approaches for addressing gross human rights violations committed during conflicts. One prominent approach is to use transitional justice as a cornerstone for reconciliation. Transitional justice, in general, consists of policies and approaches pursued by post-conflict states to deal with past human rights violations, though it continues to be debated. It is nonetheless understood to incorporate the principles of truth finding, justice, and respect for victims, formal court proceedings, reparations, apology, forgiveness, and healing. These elements are adopted in different combinations according to the socio-political environment.19 A useful differentiation between forms of transitional justice is one that depicts it as retributive and restorative justice.20 While retributive justice emphasizes formal court proceedings to establish the truth about human rights violations and to punish those judged to be responsible, restorative justice places more emphasis on telling the truth in exchange for some sort of amnesty or forgiveness. International tribunals and international criminal courts are examples of retributive justice, but the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions formed in South African and Sierra Leone represent instances of formal, restorative transitional justice. Reconciliation approached through the principles of retributive justice uses punishment to deter a repetition of past abuses and provide justice to the victims and society, whereas restorative justice has as its primary goal the repair of the harm done to individuals through apology, compensation, and forgiveness in the interest of peace and reconciliation among society as a whole. The overwhelming emphasis in the literature on transitional justice as an approach to reconciliation has invited much criticism, including that it is elite-based, neglects grass-root approaches, and is grounded in western moral codes and conceptions. As a result, a trend has emerged in theory and practice that devotes more attention to grass-root-level reconciliation. Along these lines, Anna-Karin Evaldsson has critically examined elite conceptions of reconciliation, as reflected in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, and their relevance to the attitudes of the 19. Dawn L. Rothe and Christopher W. Mullins, ‘Building justice after war: The use of multiple postconflict justice mechanisms’, Social Justice, 35:3 (2008), www.thefreelibrary.com/Building+justice+after+ war%3a+the+use+of+multiple+post-conflict+justice...-a0201802104; J. M. Vorster, ‘Truth reconciliation, transformation and human rights’, Ecumenical Review, 56:4 (2004), www.thefreelibrary.com /Truth%2c+reconciliation%2c+transformation+and+human+rights.-a0133683517; Pumla Gobodo Madikizela, ‘Transforming trauma in the aftermath of gross human rights abuses: Making public spaces intimate through the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ in Arie Nadler, Thomas E. Malloy, and Jeffrey D. Fisher (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008); Padraig McAuliffe, ‘East Timor’s community reconciliation process as a model for legal pluralism in criminal justice’, Law, Social Justice and Global Development, 12 (2008), www.thefree library.com/East+Timor’s+Community+Reconciliation+Process+as+a+model+for+legal...-a0192852728; Rafi Nets-Zehngut, ‘Passive healing of the aftermath of intractable conflicts’, International Peace Studies Journal, 14:1 (2009), www.thefreelibrary.com/Passive+healing+of+the+aftermath+of+intractable+ conflicts.-a0238179015. 20. Louis Kriesberg, ‘Reconciliation: Aspects, growth and sequences’, International Journal of Peace Studies, 12:1 (2007), www.thefreelibrary.com/Reconciliation%3a+aspects%2c+growth%2c+and+sequences.-a 0178359707.