We work side by side with victims to obtain acknowledgment and redress for massive human rights violations, hold those responsible to account, reform and build democratic institutions, and prevent the recurrence of violence or repression.
Transforming Social Relations: Restorative Responses to Massive Human Rights Violations
This research report offers guidance on the application of a restorative justice framework in contexts of massive human rights violations, including its advantages and challenges. Based on the experiences of Colombia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, and the Philippines, the study examines how different responses to massive violations can integrate or reflect the practices and principles of restorative justice such as stakeholder participation, repair of harm, and engagement between victims and perpetrators.
Image
Restorative justice and transitional justice are closely and fundamentally related responses to crime. They emphasize shared values and promote similar frameworks that seek to clarify responsibilities, and they both address the inherent limitations of existing institutions: for restorative justice, the limitations of retributive systems in dealing with domestic crimes; for transitional justice, the additional limitations of conventional or compromised rule of law institutions in dealing with serious and massive international crimes. In many ways, restorative justice is at the center of transitional justice. While scholars and practitioners of transitional justice have consistently applied the concepts of restorative justice, in practical terms, there are few examples of restorative justice practices being explicitly integrated into transitional justice processes, specifically those aimed at criminal accountability. There is also a general lack of understanding within both fields about what such integration means or requires.
This report offers reflection, clarity, and guidance on the application of a restorative justice framework in contexts of massive human rights violations, including the advantages, risks, opportunities, and challenges of such an approach. The analysis is based on the experiences of Colombia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, and the Bangsamoro region of the Philippines, which represent a range of different processes that all either integrated or reflected the practices or principles of restorative justice. These principles include stakeholder participation and repair of harm, and the practices include the use of direct or indirect dialogue or engagement between victims and perpetrators to resolve crimes. The study's findings address the role of dialogue between victims and perpetrators; the importance of engagement with communities and society in establishing a link between the micro and macro levels; the contribution of alternative or restorative sanctions in facilitating participation and repair; the need for integrity, legitimacy, and efficacy of process; and the coherence of restorative justice with other justice, peacebuilding, and transitional processes.