Transitional justice in the post-revolution Sudan 2 - 4

Dr. Sami Abdul Halim Said
Second, measures to design justice that contribute to peacebuilding and democracy (justice solutions):
1. Justice in the Transitional Constitution:
It is important that the Constitution include the desired goals of justice and how it is accomplished. Those ends derive from the States new goals. Todays Constitution, laws and institutions have been established to achieve the objectives and objectives of the Dictatorship State.

With the aim of achieving social peace, stability and combating extremism and discrimination, all of which are essential inputs to building development, political stability and peaceful coexistence, the Revolutions transitional Constitution is helping to accelerate the democratic transition in society, and it is therefore envisaged that that Constitution will contain clearer provisions, reflecting the States objectives in the new phase. If the States new objectives are to establish social justice, renounce discrimination and extremism, and build social peace and development (for the sake of freedom of peace and justice), this necessarily requires that the Constitution, for example: "It is prohibited to establish, instigate, pave, glorify, promote or justify any entity or approach that adopts racism, terrorism, atonement or sectarian cleansing under any name, and that group or party may not be part of political pluralism in the Sudan, which is regulated by law." This is an obvious, straightforward model for achieving the goals of the State as we referred to here.

Thus, the objectives of justice in the context of democratization can be unloaded in constitutional texts that reformulate the concepts and principles under which the States justice institutions will operate.

2. Establishment of institutions:
Institutions are always constituted and laws are passed in the light of the Constitutions indicators for governors and national legislators. In the context of the transition from war, conflict and rupture, to peace, respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence, it will be necessary to build institutions that work towards that situation.

Under the provisions of the Transitional Constitution, bodies and commissions are established to reform the States institutions, including judicial institutions, and their functioning is regulated by laws under which they operate. In this urgency, it is necessary to refer to some important measures as transitional measures:
- The referral of senior officials of the dictatorial regime suspected of having been involved in serious crimes during the previous judgement to criminal commissions of inquiry, who are temporarily excluded from their functions in the State until the conclusion of the investigation with their acquittal, and who are under investigation are entitled to defend themselves and appeal decisions against them.
- The establishment of a culture of equality and equity and respect for human rights, and the elimination of ideas and ideologies left behind by the culture that the dictatorship has established and spread in society and its institutions.
- Above all, it is important to undertake legislative and institutional reforms that make the impartial application of justice possible and achievable.

Third: Legal experiences and perspectives to provide solutions to the post-revolutionary status of justice.

An important constitutional topic is the identification of criteria to guide the legislation and justice institutions.

It is important to take into account the circumstances and situation of the judicial organs, the security situation and political trends as determinants that must be overcome so that justice can be administered impartially in the post-dictatorial period.

In the post-dictatorship administration of justice, in the time of democracy-building and rule-of-law institutions, it is very important to apply the principles of human rights and universally adopted standards of justice, so that justice is not the liquidation of political opponents, and that it is not fair to demonstrate the new rulers persistence in their crimes. Justice must be impartial and independent and establish the rule of law through the promotion of the principle of equality before the law and the independence of the judiciary.

There are some principles or foundations to be considered when establishing the justice system against those who violated human rights in the Sudan:
- A revolution that does not provide justice to citizens who have suffered discrimination, exclusion, injustice, oppression and violations is an extension of the Covenant on Injustice and Discrimination.
- Justice creates an atmosphere of equality, gives impetus to the defence of the new era, expands the contribution to construction and reconstruction, defends the homeland and works to prevent the recurrence of the dictatorships tragedy.
- Justice helps to build social peace by insulting the oppressed and by deterring the oppressed. Such justice is also a deterrent to the new rulers, helping to alert them of the consequences of human rights violations.

Here we study cases, and try to find out that the legal situation is by giving examples and applications commensurate with the national situation. Focusing on some important axes, as follows:
The grave violations committed against the demonstrators:
The interim Constitution of the Sudan of 2005 stipulates in article 40 (1): "The right to peaceful assembly shall be guaranteed and everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form or join political parties, associations, trade unions and professional associations in order to protect his interests."

The Sudan, as a Member of the United Nations, has an obligation under article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for freedom of organization and peaceful assembly. As a ratifier of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is bound by articles 21 and 22 on the right to peaceful organization and assembly.

It is important here to review some regional experiences, in which justice has been applied in the face of those who violated citizens right to peaceful assembly and the right to organize in the Sudan. Below are the following experiences:

Kenyas experience:
In December 2007, Kenya fought general elections to elect the President of the Republic (Riala Odinga-Mwai Kibaki), and by announcing the results of Kibakis victory, the citizens group took part in demonstrations rejecting the results, accusing the President-elect of Kibaki rigged the election results, and those protests and objections resulted in widespread killings. As Kenyas national judiciary is not prepared in the light of ethnic and political injustices and escalating violence and multilateral polarizations, the national judiciary was likely to fail to deal with those violations. The case was referred to the International Criminal Court, which charged six important political figures in the Government, including a number of ministers: Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Industry, Minister of Education, Director of Police, Director of Radio and Secretary General of the Council of Ministers. National television was broadcasting trials from The Hague on a daily basis until they were seen by the public.

Although Kenya enjoys an almost distinct judiciary in Africa, it has a democratic constitution in which power is transferred through elections and peacefully. However, security conditions, threats and uncertainties, and the division of society have necessitated the referral of this case to the International Criminal Court, to ensure that justice is impartial and far from being questioned.

Egypts experience:
After the 2011 uprising that ended Mubaraks three-decade rule, the Egyptian authorities received reports against former President Alaa and his two sons, Jamal and their wives, dozens of former officials and businessmen, including allegations of corruption. Mubarak and his two sons were convicted in a final verdict of corruption and were sentenced to only three years imprisonment.

After the end of Hosni Mubaraks dictatorship, the Egyptian state continued to retain the state called the "deep state", which remained governed by defective laws and competencies, a culture of corruption and nepotism, and among the deep state institutions still governed by those mechanisms, the institutions of justice. The oppressed and the victims of the dictatorship in those institutions and laws did not find justice and justice.