Resource Library

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.

ICTJ’s president David Tolbert will be one of the featured speakers at this year’s Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, Qatar, which aims to explore the complex transformation of the socio-political and media landscapes of the Middle East and North Africa.

In this edition of ICTJ's Program report, Kelli Muddell, director of ICTJ's Gender Justice program, reflects on ICTJ’s vision of gender justice, the challenges facing survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in times of transition, and how ICTJ is working to address inequality in countries like Colombia, Nepal, and Tunisia.

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.

Six years after the conflict ended, the government of Nepal has failed to initiate a comprehensive investigation into the past. As a result, it has failed to uphold the rights of victims and Nepali society to know the truth about abuses. Inaction is particularly cruel regarding the relatives of the disappeared, for whom lack of information on the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones equates to permanent anguish and extreme suffering.

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.

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.

On International Children’s Day, ICTJ reaffirms the importance of an active role of children and youth in transitional justice processes, such as truth-seeking, criminal accountability, and reparations programs. In the aftermath of societal upheaval, the voices of children and youth are often absent from peace negotiations and subsequent transitional processes. Though children and youth must be able to receive adequate care and necessary rehabilitation, they must not be regarded only as victims of massive human rights abuses: they are rights-bearing members of a society trying to confront the past, and active participants in the process of social change aiming for a new future. It is in the best interest of children and youth, as well as the societies in which they live, to participate in transitional justice processes, devised to reestablish rule of law and civic trust in the societies to which they belong.

Six years after a peace agreement formally ended the conflict in Nepal, the slow, painstaking process of building the country’s new democracy has yet to provide comprehensive reparation to victims. To fully acknowledge the experience of victims of the conflict, Nepal’s government should not mistake the issuance of relief through material benefits for the implementation of a comprehensive reparation program. This is one of the central recommendations of "Relief, Reparations, and the Root Causes of Conflict in Nepal," a major new report from ICTJ, and authored by Ruben Carranza.