Concept and history of transitional justice

Concept
The concept refers to the set of judicial and non-judicial measures implemented by various States to address their heirs serious human rights violations. These measures include prosecutions, truth commissions, reparation programmes and various forms of institutional reform. It can be shortened in the common expression "pardon God for the foregoing."

Transitional justice is not a particular form of justice, but an approach to justice in periods of transition from conflict and/or State repression. By attempting to achieve accountability and compensation for victims, transitional justice provides recognition of victims rights, encourages civic trust, and strengthens the rule of law and democracy.

Nature of transitional justice
The concept of transitional justice is one of the still vague for many, particularly with regard to the second section of the term; Is there a transitional justice? What is the difference between it and traditional justice?

Transitional justice differs from traditional justice in that it deals with transitional periods such as: the transition from an internal armed conflict to a state of peace, the transition from an authoritarian political rule to democratic governance, or freedom from foreign occupation by restoring or establishing local government, all of which are usually accompanied by some necessary reform measures and an effort to redress the victims of serious violations.

That is, the concept of transitional justice means responding to systematic or widespread human rights violations, with a view to achieving due recognition of victims violations and enhancing possibilities for peace, reconciliation and democracy. That is, adapting justice to societies in transition following an era of widespread human rights violations; Whether these shifts occur suddenly or over decades, in other words, the concept of transitional justice links two concepts: justice and transition: justice during a States transition.

Although the concept emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War, its presence has been particularly intense since the 1970s, since then the world has witnessed more than 30 transitional justice experiences, most notably those of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Greece, Sierra Leone, Peru and Serbia.

Although the idea of transitional justice is relatively modern, the last quarter of the twentieth century has experienced significant experiences of transitional justice around the world. In this regard, the topic of transitional justice has begun to raise itself in recent years, to varying degrees in some Arab countries national contexts. The formulas for the topic, both in the form of formal invitations to some political decision makers, have varied in the context of establishing civil peace and ending armed conflict and in the form of formal invitations relevant to the needs to promote democratic transition through national reconciliation. For victims and civil associations associated with or interacting with transitional justice, through multiple forms, dominated by the Presidents calls for truth and impunity.

History of transitional justice

Phase I
The first phase, in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, was mainly the Nuremberg trials, during which transitional justice revolved around the idea of criminalization and the resulting international trials. The most important mechanics of its work were the Genocide Convention, which had been adopted, and the establishment of precedents, after which human rights violations could no longer be justified in the name of responding to orders. At this stage, perpetrators of human rights violations have formed the centre of attention in the pursuit of justice.

Phase II
During the cold war, transitional justice efforts stagnated and continued until the second phase, which occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union and various political changes in the Eastern European States, Germany and Czechoslovakia, At this stage, a politicized and local or national concept of social justice was applied, linked to the States formal structures. And here I went beyond the idea of trials and included other mechanisms like truth commissions, Reparations, that is, during this phase transitional justice has become a national dialogue between perpetrators and victims, During this phase, the experience of truth commissions in Argentina and a number of Latin American and South African States emerged.

The concept evolved during the transitional periods following the rule of military dictatorships in Latin America, South Africa, after the apartheid regime and some African and Eastern and Central European States in the aftermath of the cold war. There was international consensus on the need for transitional justice procedures to deal with past human rights violations, which coincided with the objectives of States and donor bodies that required a well-established application of the rule of law to allow economic development.

Phase III
In other words, the third wave of democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s gave new impetus and impetus to transitional justice, moving from being a concept linked to the transition between democratic transition and justice. (As it emerged in the late 1940s), the concept has become so broader in space that it includes a broader perspective based on a comprehensive reassessment of a society in transition to another location whose fundamental objective is democracy.

It was then the real start of what might be called the application of transitional justice, in human rights trials in Greece in the mid-1970s, and thereafter in follow-up to military rule in Argentina and Chile through Argentinas truth commissions in 1983 and Chile in 1990 and subsequently in many Latin continent States.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 is the beginning of a new political landscape involving the third phase of transitional justice recurrent conflicts have led to repeated instances of application of transitional justice, Voices calling for limiting the introduction of immunity have also risen to become the exception rather than the rule. In this context, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established in 1994 and subsequently in 1998 the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal was approved. These developments affected many of the subsequent peace agreements, which referred to international trials as part of the peaceful settlement process; This includes the Arusha Convention on Burundi and the Linas-Marcoussis Convention on Côte dIvoire.

* This article benefited from ICTJ publications