Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Exploring Transitional Justice Options in Contemporary Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
January 2006

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (435KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

Introduction
One of the greatest challenges in the aftermath of any violent conflict is the issue of accountability for serious human rights violations. Although impunity continues to characterise many post-conflict situations, since the end of World War 2 there has been perceptible progress in efforts towards securing justice and accountability and in undertakings to build polities based on fundamental rights and freedoms and respect for the rule of law. Although there is much work still to be done in this regard, addressing the rights of victims and survivors is increasingly recognised as an essential component of any credible efforts designed to tackle issues of justice and accountability, which are themselves integral components of building the foundations of a sustainable democratic culture. Policies of amnesia and avoidance, which have characterised so much of the past, are under attack and, in the words of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "the preference for doing nothing is no longer an option."¹

There is now a framework of international criminal law and institutions that operate at both international and domestic levels. This has culminated with the creation of the International Criminal Court whose statute has now been ratified by 97 States. The Statute is based on the principle that international prosecution complements national efforts and encourages the emergence of national judicial systems that are willing and capable of prosecuting serious violations (i.e. war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide) in accordance with international standards.

A theoretical framework for criminal prosecutions of such violations has therefore been developed, but we are a long way from a comprehensive application of the principles of complementarity. In other words, in many jurisdictions, often for differing reasons (political and/or pragmatic), national judicial systems are simply not synchronised to pursue these options. Prospects for securing justice and accountability are further compounded by a host of complexities and challenges associated with investigating and prosecuting international crimes. International processes have been limited, and as experience has already shown in the case of Rwanda, for example, these processes do not effectively address the needs of victims and survivors.

Especially in developing countries, capacity within the formal criminal justice system is acutely limited and it is necessary to explore alternative approaches to justice and accountability. Consequently, it is necessary to assess the quality and capacity of national justice systems during transitional periods.

Transitional Justice – or, the pursuit of comprehensive justice during times of political transition – has come to refer to the development, analysis, and practical application of a wide variety of strategies for confronting the legacy of past human rights abuses in order to create a more just and democratic future.

In theory and in practice, the central objectives of a transitional justice approach are to confront legacies of abuse in a broad and holistic manner that encompasses criminal justice, restorative justice, social justice, and economic justice. In addition, this approach is premised on a belief that a responsible justice policy must include measures that seek to achieve both accountability for past crimes and the prevention of new crimes. In addition, it requires taking into account the collective character of the various forms of victimisation, as well as the trans-national character of certain human rights crimes.²

This complex task requires dealing collectively with past, present and future exigencies, often in a context of acute resource limitations and adverse political conditions. Such conditions vary in each transitional context, and what can be achieved in terms of justice and accountability is often largely dependent on the nature of the specific obstacles and opportunities that present themselves.

Although the study of transitional justice situations and options remains relatively new, past experience demonstrates there are many similarities in terms of the challenges that are faced in the aftermath of political transitions from authoritarian rule. As such, we should learn from the experiences of others, in order to explore and develop a range of justice and accountability options. Such initiatives will be central to the rebuilding and consolidation of administrative and judicial systems that are premised on respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

Download full document

Visit the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum fact sheet

1. Commissioner’s opening address on the Rule of Law Tools for Post-Con.ict States to the Transitional Justice Workshop, 27–29 September, 2004, <http://www.unhchr.ch/hurricane.nsf>.
2 Taken from the ‘Background Paper’ provided to participants in the 2003 Summer Institute convened by the International Center for Transitional Justice, <http://www.ictj.org>.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP