Sacrificing justice in the hope of securing peace is often projected as a more realistic route to ending conflict and bringing about stability than holding perpetrators to account. Yet this report draws on Human Rights Watch research to argue that the impact of justice is too often undervalued when weighing objectives in resolving a conflict. While there is no one formula suitable to all situations, a decision to ignore atrocities and to reinforce a culture of impunity may carry a high price.
It is now generally recognised that international law obligates countries to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. International tribunals and national courts applying universal jurisdiction are likely to reject de jure amnesties for the most serious human rights abuses. However, various actors have argued that pursuing accountability can hinder peace negotiations and that justice, while important, should take a back seat to peace. In the past, those responsible for human rights abuses have often been offered amnesty or even incorporated into government in an effort to consolidate peace. Human Rights Watch’s research over the past 20 years, however, demonstrates that foregoing justice in the pursuit of peace often proves to be short-sighted.
In the short-term, it is easy to understand the temptation to forego justice in an effort to end armed conflict. However, the pursuit of justice does not necessarily have a negative impact on peace negotiations, while foregoing accountability often does not result in the hoped-for benefits.
- Indictments of abusive leaders and the resulting stigmatisation can lead to the marginalisation of a suspected war criminal. Examples of this include the indictments of Radovan Karadžic in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Charles Taylor in Liberia.
- Amnesties may effectively sanction the commission of grave crimes without bringing peace. The cases of Sierra Leone, Angola and Sudan show that peace based on impunity is often not sustainable and may even encourage future abuses.
- Incorporating suspected war criminals into governments in order to consolidate peace carries a high price. In Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, doing so has led to further abuses and continued lawlessness.
Even outside of the immediate pressures of peace talks, governments and international actors may find it expedient to forego accountability for gross human rights violations. However, this can have damaging long-term consequences, while promoting accountability has important long-term benefits. Both peace and justice should be the objectives of negotiations aimed at ending a conflict where the most serious crimes under international law have been committed. At the very least, peace agreements should not foreclose the possibility of justice at a later date.
- Tolerance of impunity can contribute to renewed cycles of violence by creating an atmosphere of distrust and revenge that can be manipulated to foment violence. Violence in the former Yugoslavia, Burundi, Rwanda and Kenya provides evidence of this.
- Fair trials help to create a historical record that protects against revisionism.
- International justice can have a positive impact on domestic enforcement. Ad hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and universal jurisdiction have furthered the development of means to address serious international crimes in national courts.
- Given the nascent development of international criminal justice, evidence of its deterrent effect is not yet to be expected. However, there is already increased awareness of what constitutes criminal behaviour as a result of ICC prosecutions.
