Transitional Justice Implementation

Transitional justice implementation is based on accountability. It is also compensated for the victims. Ignoring abuses is an easy way, but destroys the values ​​from which any reasonable society can be built. Transitional justice implementation law and policy are imaginable. By putting victims and dignity first, this points out that a renewed commitment is coming forward to ensure that ordinary citizens are safe in their own country – protected from abuse by their officials and effectively protected from violations of others.

Mass persecution and systematic abuse are damaging, societies and their legacy seems to make the country’s conditions fragile: Political and legal institutions such as parliament, the judiciary, police and prosecution may be weak, unbalanced, politically and inadequate. The violations themselves will be seriously damaged, regardless of the confidence in the state to guarantee the rights and security of citizens. Communities will often disintegrate in this process, and social or political organizations will be greatly weakened. Finding legitimate reactions to the major violations under these real constraints of scale and social fragility is what defines transitional justice and distinguishes it from the promotion and defense of human rights in general (Franović, 2008).

Due to the number of violations and the context of social fragility, transitional justice implementation will not be dealt with in the usual way. Traditionally, four types of approaches have been given great importance. The criminal prosecution, at least the most responsible for the most serious crimes, seeking truth (or finding the truth) commits human rights violations by judicial bodies. They may change, but often look at not only events, but also their causes and effects. An assessment of various forms of compensation for human rights violations arises. It is individual collective, material and symbolic. This includes reform of laws and institutions, including police, judiciary, military and military intelligence. Different approaches should not be seen as alternatives to each other. For example, truth commissions do not replace prosecutions. They are trying to do something different from prosecutions in terms of broader validation and limiting the culture of denial. Likewise, constitutional reform laws and institutions are not an alternative to other measures, but rather seek direct confidence and prevent the repetition of violations. It is also important to think in an innovative and creative way about these approaches and other possibilities. When assessing whether this situation provides justice or not, it is essential that the situation be brought to the concrete event. It explores what reconciliation can mean in our context and constructively addresses “the concepts of solving problems with the past”. It provides an overview of past practices in the former Yugoslavia region. It also summarizes what needs to be done to ensure lasting peace (Franović, 2008). For all these reasons, it is not possible to say that expected and desired outcome provides an expected and desired result in the application of transitional justice implementation and can fully meet the necessary needs.

Ensuring justice in transitional justice implementation processes is a difficult process. Transition processes played an important role in highlighting the fact-seeking theme. This is generally attributed to the types of crime specific to authoritarian regimes, that is to say, extraordinary nature of civil society movements that are inherently secret and deceptive and at the same time achieve a high and clear voice. Since then, the pursuit of truth and efforts to tell the truth have taken a central place in the process of overcoming the legacy of mass harassment following a violent conflict. Where the truth sought by society in a broader transitional justice implementation framework has often been debated. Moreover, the so-called truth is a multi-faceted concept with many meanings and interpretations. Restorative justice promises to be an attractive approach to providing justice to victims and perpetrators after mass violence. In addition, restorative approaches that promote reconciliation and reintegration are increasingly recognized in post-conflict justice policy (Valiñas & Vanspauwen, 2009). One of the most important examples to be considered in this situation is Yugoslavia.

This focuses on the competence of the UN Security Council and on the knowledge of international law and the authority to deal solely with individual criminal responsibility to the ICTY. Presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senior military and police commanders, paramilitary leaders, public figures were accused and brought before international judges. Without any doubt, the most serious and symbolic crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were handled and dealt with in the courts of The Hague. Thus, the manner in which the prosecution of war crimes was conducted was determined. In the process of achieving this objective, prosecution represents victims of crime and is therefore primarily responsible for drawing attention to the courts and the truthful expression of the public. Not all perpetrators are brought to justice because not all evidence is available at all times and it is not possible for all willing witnesses to stand – physically or over time. Thus, even in the Hague, an appropriate judicial process may not be enough for thousands of victims. Following the conference in Sarajevo, the conference seeks different ways to address the issue of identifying and telling the truth after the conflicts (Banac, 2009).

Conflicts and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia are mostly related to war crimes. It often becomes politicized because it addresses these issues through political spectacles, rather than from the victims’ perspective. These discussions often express the truth by revealing the truth. Truth can be a very complex and very subjective subject, based solely on facts, and can be easily seen in different ways by both parties or individuals. On the other hand, the facts are indisputable. A judicial process, such as war crimes prosecutions, with all controls and tests, can answer serious questions and generate facts beyond reasonable doubt. By identifying these facts, criminal prosecutions contribute to a clear understanding of the crimes committed and to a fair understanding in the context of conflicts. Prosecution is needed to bring evidence of the nature of armed conflicts – internal or international and the accusations must be put in the right legal framework. Politicians, historians, anyone to argue, will continue to argue about the nature of conflicts, placing political and historical definitions on the human dimension, human suffering and individual responsibility. In contrast, criminal prosecution precisely targets the human dimension of each crime – perpetrators and victims. Major prosecutions constitute a comprehensive record of past violations (Banac, 2009).

War crimes are also included in human trafficking and slavery. Gender-based persecution is considered a crime against humanity. With a view to closing the gap between legal standards and their implementation, reforms have been made in the investigation of war crimes in order to improve the detection of gender-based human rights violations and provisions have been drawn up so that prosecutors have access to expertise in gender-based prosecution offenses. In addition, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) tried to prevent this by making significant changes to the evidence rules. They forbade evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior and prohibited what could be presented as a defense against sexual assault. The need to confirm the testimony of a victim’s sexual assault was assessed (Bell & O’Rourke, 2007). Because all these assessments can be seen as a result of the assessments made under the criminal procedure procedure.

Although they share a range of common perceptions of war crimes cases and their impact on their communities, victims can often be classified into two categories, depending on their personal experience of the legal process and how it shapes their perceptions of justice. The main factor in the discrimination between them is whether they have criminal proceedings as witnesses. However, there is a common feature in both victim categories. It considers that the penalties provide a valid measure for the quality and relevance of criminal justice. Although most victims acknowledge that there will not be enough penalties to punish those crimes committed against them and their relatives, the sentences spoken by the ICTY have a meaning (Hodzic, 2010). In view of the events taking place in the case of the former Yugoslavia, it cannot be said that it is a complete example of success in the criminal procedure.

 

REFERENCES

  • Franović, I. “Dealing with the Past in the Context of Ethnonationalism”, 25-33, 2008.
  • Valiñas, , Vanspauwen K., “Truth-seeking after violent conflict: experiences from South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina”, 270-273, 2009.
  • Bell, C., O’Rourke C., “Does Feminism Need a Theory of Transitional Justice? An Introductory Essay”, 27-28, 2007.
  • Banac, I., “What Happened in the Balkans (or Rather ex–Yugoslavia)?”, 462-468, 2009.
  • Hodzic, R., “Living the Legacy of Mass Atrocities Victims’ Perspectives on War Crimes Trials”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10-13, 2010.

Alakalı Yazı

0 Yorumlar

Bir Cevap Yazın