Resource Library

The trial of Ratko Mladic for genocide, crimes against humanity, and multiple war crimes committed during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, began yesterday. But these charges have done little to damage the hero status he enjoys today among the majority of Serbs, writes Refik Hodzic. Unless this legacy is addressed in the communities of Srebrenica and the rest of Bosnia, the outcome of his trial may prove to be merely symbolic, if that.

The trial of Thomas Lubanga before the ICC has the potential to set a critical precedent regarding the right to reparations. In our latest podcast ICTJ's Director of Reparations Ruben Carranza discusses recommendations ICTJ submitted to the ICC concerning the implementation of reparations. [Download](/sites/default/files/Carranza_ICTJ_Podcast_06132012.mp3) | Duration: 16:56mins | File size: 9.69MB

Why pursue transitional justice in the aftermath of massive human rights violations? “The Case for Justice” provides a window into the debate about the relevance of transitional justice in today’s world.

The decision on reparations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the case of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga sets a historic precedent, but it should not be celebrated until victims in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are fully compensated through an inclusive and participatory process. The Lubanga decision stated that reparations “go beyond the notion of punitive justice, towards a solution which is more inclusive, encourages participation and recognizes the need to provide effective remedies for victims.” Yet Ruben Carranza, director of ICTJ’s Reparative Justice program, is cautious about celebrating before the process is complete.

The latest episode of ICTJ Forum, a monthly podcast looking into recent news and events from around the world, features ICTJ President David Tolbert, Truth and Memory Program Director Eduardo Gonzalez, and Africa Program Director Suliman Baldo. They join host and Communications Director Refik Hodzic for an in-depth analysis of recent developments in Kenya, the former Yugoslavia, and Colombia.

In the quest to bring perpetrators of massive crimes to justice, international courts should be considered only as a last resort. Efforts to establish rule of law require the development of national capacity to prosecute the most serious crimes. On 25 and 26 October 2012, leading international actors from the judicial, rule of law, and development sectors will convene at the Greentree Estate in Manhasset, New York for the third Greentree Conference on Complementarity. The meeting aims to examine the needs of and challenges to national prosecutions for the most serious crimes in four countries: Ivory Coast, the DRC, Colombia, and Guatemala.

When perpetrators of serious international crimes are brought to justice by the country in which they committed their crimes, it signals a strong commitment to accountability and the rule of law. To ensure that domestic investigations and prosecutions occur for serious crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity, the need for international assistance goes beyond the walls of the courtroom: development agencies and rule of law actors can provide countries with essential support to fairly and effectively prosecute serious international crimes in their own courts.

ICTJ partnered with the Center for Global Affairs at New York University to explore how political will of international and national actors impacts national war crimes proceedings. The panel examined four diverse country scenarios - the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Serbia, Iraq, and Guatemala.

The latest ICTJ Program Report presents ICTJ’s work in Africa. In a deeply insightful interview, Suliman Baldo, director of ICTJ’s Africa program and one of the world’s leading experts on transitional justice in Africa, discusses transitional justice processes in Ivory Coast, Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda.

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.