Resource Library

In this opinion piece, Lucia Withers argues that Nepal's elected parties and their representatives should not limit their discussions to the establishment of a truth commission or whether it will provide for amnesties and/or prosecutions. Rather, they should focus on designing policies that are more comprehensive and that would better serve the rights and needs of conflict victims and contribute to broader peace-building efforts.

The recent verdict issued by the Justice and Peace Courtroom of the High Tribunal of Bogota on October 30th against Hebert Veloza Garcia, paramilitary commander of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), sets a valuable precedent for the prosecution of system crimes in Colombia.

A short biography of Hebert Veloza Garcia aka "H.H."

The Justice and Peace Chamber ruling in the hearing to verify the legality of the charges against Hebert Veloza Garcia contained information on the context in which these occurred. According to the Tribunal, it thus seeks to “contribute elements that underpin the analysis of the modus operandi, the patterns, if any, and the dynamics in which the criminal structure under the command of Hebert Veloza Garcia, alias “H.H.” was organized, as well as to “establish the judicial truth with respect to the criminal actions of the paramilitary groups in different regions of the country.”

The first verdict in the Justice and Peace process case against paramilitary commander Hebert Veloza Garcia, alias “H.H.”, will be announced on October 30, and will be a landmark in Colombia's compliance with its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and sanction those who have committed international crimes and serious human rights violations in the country.

Next week, the Colombian courts will issue the first partial verdict in the Justice and Peace case against the paramilitary leader Hebert Veloza García, alias “HH,” one of the most significant cases of the Justice and Peace process. Ahead of the HH partial verdict on October 30th, ICTJ is launching a comprehensive timeline on transitional justice measures implemented in Colombia since 2005 that recognize victims' rights to truth, justice, reparations, and the guarantee of non-recurrence.

On April 10, the UN General Assembly is holding a thematic debate on the role of international justice in reconciliation processes. The debate was called by UN GA President Vuk Jeremic, of Serbia, in the wake of the recent acquittal of Croatian General Ante Gotovina by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the real purpose of this debate is directed at undermining the ICTY, rather than to discuss an important issue, not only in the Balkans, but in a growing number of countries.

The Italy-based research center Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso is hosting an online debate on the ICTY's contribution to reconciliation. The debate, featuring Refik Hodzic of ICTJ and Dr. Janine Clark of the University of Sheffield, who will present arguments for and against the notion that ICTY has contributed to reconciliation. Outside audiences are invited to participate online.

As attested by the arrest on January 3, 2013 in the United Kingdom of Kumar Lama, a Nepali Army Colonel suspected of torture, the government of Nepal’s failure to pursue truth and accountability for conflict-era violations can have serious consequences. Rather than resisting UK efforts to implement its obligations under international law, the Nepali government should develop a full transitional justice programme and redouble its efforts to provide truth, justice and reparations inside the country.

The United Nations has proclaimed December 10 as International Human Rights Day. The date commemorates the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which represented the reaction of the international community to the horrors of the Second World War. Today is a day for reflection more than celebration. A cursory scan of events from the last few weeks has thrown up examples that demonstrate that the belief in human rights for all - in treating all states the same - is more of a tissue-thin membrane than a robust bulwark.