Judicial mechanisms as a complement to reconciliation efforts in transitional justice settings: Exploring opportunities in the Burundian context
Posted: 19 March, 2024 Filed under: Lyse Nathalie Menyimana | Tags: Arusha Peace agreement, Burundi, human rights violations, judicial mechanisms, judicial processes, mass graves, national reconciliation, post-conflict, right to justice, Transitional Justice, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Ubushingantahe, victim-centered approach, violations Leave a comment
Author: Lyse Nathalie Menyimana
Researcher and independent consultant
Transitional justice
Transitional justice is a set of mechanisms established in post-conflict settings to deal with massive violations, acknowledge victims’ claims and attempt to deter violations from happening in the future. While recognising the lack of a perfect formula, whether in the definition or sequencing of the mechanisms, transitional justice (TJ) leaves space for every society to find its own way to deal with massive human rights violations (African Union Transitional Justice Policy, 2019).
While TJ is essentially based on four complementary pillars –truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition– inspired by Louis Joinet, this brief article addresses the importance of the right (access) to justice, with regards to long term reconciliation in countries engaged in transitional justice processes such as the Burundi context. The author believes that the right to justice is fundamental and complementary to the right to truth, to reparations and that it can be seen as a precondition for national reconciliation.
20 years after the TRC: Are we any the better?
Posted: 18 August, 2016 Filed under: Thabang Mokgatle | Tags: African Charter on Democracy, Amnesty Committee, apartheid, conflict, Constitutional Court of Uganda, Desmond Tutu, El Salvador, Human Rights Violations Committee, justice, Khulumani Support Group, maximalists, minimalists, Mpho Tutu, Patricia Campbell, peace, pragmatics, rainbow nation, reconciliation, Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee, retribution, rule of law, social intervention, South Africa, survivors, TRC, truth, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Tshepo Madlingozi, victims 3 Comments 
Author: Thabang Mokgatle
Candidate Attorney, Rushmere Noach Incorporated, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
“We are looking to maintain not retribution but reparation; we are seeking room for humanity rather than revenge”
– Desmond Tutu, First hearing of the TRC in April 1996
15 April 2016 marked the twentieth anniversary since the Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) first commenced in South Africa. In reflecting on the occasion, the words of Desmond Tutu above quoted have unveiled two pertinent questions: Did post-apartheid South Africa, in 1996, require a moment for justice or for reconciliation? Would the pursuit of the former in the first instance, not have led to the achievement of the latter? There is a growing sense that in prioritising the ‘rainbow nation’, the TRC substantially undermined the realisation of justice (institutional justice through the court system). Victims of apartheid-era crimes have supposedly been short-changed, leaving much to be desired since the TRC first convened.
South Africa apartheid lawsuit – The end of the epopee?
Posted: 14 October, 2013 Filed under: Marek Jan Wasinski | Tags: Alien Tort Statute, apartheid, customary international law, extrajudicial killings, extraterritorial jurisdiction, Filartiga v Penalrala, injustices, international human rights, Khulumani, Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, Nigeria, South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, United States of America 2 Comments
Author: Marek Jan Wasinski
Assistant Professor and Chair of Public International Law and International Relations – Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Lodz, Poland
On 21 August 2013, the 2nd United States (US) Circuit Court of Appeal reached a decision on a decade long putative class action suits brought on behalf of individuals harmed by the South African apartheid regime. The suits were originally initiated by two groups of plaintiffs, the Balintulo (or Khulumani plaintiffs) and the Ntsebeza plaintiffs against corporate defendants (namely: Daimler, Ford, and IBM). Plaintiffs asserted that the South African subsidiary companies of the defendants aided and abetted violations of customary international law committed by the (then) South African government. It was claimed inter alia that subsidiary companies had sold cars and computers to the South African government, thus facilitating race-based depredations and injustices, including rape, torture, and extrajudicial killings. A legal basis for the US court’s jurisdiction was the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a famous part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, conferring federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”. The ATS remained dormant nearly for two centuries until it spectacularly entered the stage before 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeal in a Filartiga v Pena-Irala wherein Paraguay citizens were allowed to sue a former Paraguayan police officer allegedly involved in an extrajudicial killing of a Paraguayan dissident’s son in Paraguay. The decision in Filartiga led to a dramatic rise in international human rights litigation in US courts, involving not only suits against private individuals but also against corporate entities for aiding and abetting violations of the law of nations. There were instances of such litigations ending with profitable settlements. For example, in Abdullahi v Pfizer Inc., Pfizer has reportedly agreed to pay $75 million as compensation for illegal clinical trials in Nigeria. Similarly in Wiwa v Shell Oil Co., faced with claims of complicity in murder, torture, and other crimes related to oil production in the Niger Delta, the Shell provided $15.5 million as compensation to those affected.
AfricLaw 