215 results

The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL or Special Court) was established in 2002 when the two United Nations (UN) ad hoc international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda had already existed for several years and when the first lessons could be drawn from their experi...

Applicants apply to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the judgment regarding North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.

Document from the High Court of South Africa regarding a case on enforced disappearances.

This paper assesses the impact of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The Sudanese government challenged and undermined the jurisdiction of the ICC from the start. Conversely, the leading actors in the DRC supported ...

This case study provides basic information and policy analysis on the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It aims to help guide policymakers establishing and implementing similar mechanisms. The Court broke new ground in terms of narrowly focusing on those bearing the greatest responsibi...

This report describes the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s accomplishments in the first 18 months of its mandate. The Court was established to try "those bearing the greatest responsibility" for serious violations of international law and certain provisions of domestic law since Nove...

This handbook explains the mandate, origins, purposes, and operating methods of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Special Court in Sierra Leone. It discusses the differences and similarities between them, in clear, non-technical language. The TRC and Special Court can...

This paper explores practical issues regarding the relationship between the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Special Court (SC) in Sierra Leone. It looks at: 1) the legal relationship of the Commission and the Court; 2) the question of whether the TRC information should b...

It only takes a quick skim of the daily news to see how the world has yet again failed Afghan civilians. Afghanistan has not had many good years in the past four decades of war, but the past 15 months have been decidedly fraught. The current chaos and spiking violence are proof that, despite what the US government has proclaimed, the “forever war” rages on. Peace and meaningful, victim-centered justice remain elusive.

Afghanistan is a tragic example of how a country in transition can dramatically reverse course on the arduous path toward peace and democracy and return to an abyss of violence and repression at breakneck speed. In the span of a few short weeks, the Taliban regained control over the country. When they finally entered Kabul, the internationally backed Afghan government collapsed. Now in charge, the Taliban has lost no time in demonstrating their goal to re-impose the same extremist and oppressive rule, despite initial declarations affirming a commitment to peace and human rights.

ICTJ’s partner Afghanistan Human Rights and Democracy Organization (AHRDO) recently opened a new virtual museum and database dedicated to Afghan victims of conflict and human rights abuses. “The Afghanistan Memory House” not only preserves the memory of these victims but helps pave the path for truth and justice. To launch the virtual museum, ICTJ and AHRDO cohosted a panel discussion on memorialization, moderated BBC journalist Lyse Doucet, in ICTJ’s office in New York this past December.

In July, ICTJ’s Program Director Anna Myriam Roccatello and Senior Transitional Justice Expert Ruben Carranza traveled to Yerevan to meet with civil society organizations, human rights and anti-corruption activists, and key government officials, to join them in exploring strategies for change.

In designing transitional justice in Armenia, policymakers, civil society activists, and international actors should remember those who have not had justice for so long: the families of those killed or injured in March 2008, the victims of torture and political detention, the mothers in black seeking the truth about why their soldier sons were killed, the old pensioners who live in cold and hunger, farmers and rural communities who need access to social services, and students and young citizens who saw that their hope for a better future required a revolution.

On October 31, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Sochi to discuss steps to normalize relations between Yerevan and Baku and a longer-term peace deal that would finally end the decades-long, on-and-off conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. This willingness on both sides to come to the negotiating table is without question welcome news. However, the two parties seem to want to talk about peace on different terms and without addressing core human rights issues in their respective countries in connection with the conflict.

Five years ago, in August 2018, to mark his 100 days in office, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan addressed a large rally in Yerevan’s Republic Square to officially announce his government’s intentions to incorporate transitional justice mechanisms into Armenian post-revolution reform agenda. Since then, Armenia has been pursuing a range of transitional justice initiatives alongside other democratic reforms, and it has made some limited headway, despite setbacks and major challenges including renewed conflict with Azerbaijan.