In August 2007, CJR published a letter in a national Dutch newspaper as a response to Prof. Jack Snyder of Columbia University, New York. Snyder advocates a ‘golden parachute’ by granting amnesty for perpetrators of the worst crimes, who hold powerful positions. CJR’s viewpoint on this matter differs somewhat.

Prof. Snyder argues that this golden parachute may be as simple as ‘a fixed allowance and a luxurious villa’ and that this might be sufficient to have a dictator give up his abusive position. Then e.g. armed rebel groups could also put a stop to violations of human rights.

CJR thinks that Snyder too readily accepts that a political decision – amnesty – brushes legal order aside. Such an arrangement (golden parachute) prolongs a culture of impunity.

Moreover, the prospect of amnesty and a reward could serve to be an impetus to human rights violators to maintain power and keep the society hostage.

Such amnesty arrangements have been granted to the very powerful perpetrators of the worst crimes for a long time. Only recently the tide has changed. Now (and mostly long after the crimes were committed) some dictators and responsables for human rights violations –– will they need to appear before a judge, in special tribunals or before the International Criminal Court, established in The Hague in July 2002.

This development in the international legal order might have a deterring effect. More importantly, it offers victims an opportunity for justice and (potentially) reparations. CJR believes that (planners and) those most responsible for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide must appear before a judge. Amnesty for those crimes is no longer permitted under international law.

In a transition from dictatorship to democracy, from war to peace, a process of ‘transitional justice’ where different mechanisms apply simultaneously is of great value.  How and at what point exactly they apply depends on the situation, but the support and involvement of victims is always indispensable.

One of these mechanisms is criminal justice, on the national level whenever possible. Trial by the International Criminal Court is an alternative if states are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

In addition to this, a truth commission can contribute to a process of reconciliation. Vetting (reform of institutions complice in human rights violations, such as the police) can be a parallel process.

Finally, there should be forms of redress for victims and their relatives, such as compensation, memorials or free access to education or health care.

Applying mechanisms like these is certainly not easy where the State is weak, e.g. in the Democratic Republic of Congo. For example, in Ituri district, war crimes have been committed for years. Now various transitional mechanisms are applied. One militia leader, Thomas Lubanga, has been arrested and is awaiting his trial before the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, three other rebel leaders have been taken up in the Congolese army so that their militias put a stop to violence.

In transitions there must always be careful considerations. In justice and reconciliation, the victims’ interest must take precedence.