Transitional justice in practice : truth commissions and policies of victim reparations

Over the years, truth commissions have become an appealing mechnism for dealing with large scale human rights violations. One of the reasons for this is that they avail more opportunities for dealing with the many shades of grey that characterise most conflicts. The mandates have also evolved beyond establishing the truth. It is now common for truth commissions to propose measures or reparations programmes for victims as part of its recommendations. However, considering that truth commissions are temporary establishments with limited time frames and restrictive mandates, what therefore is the future of the recommendations they make in the reports? To further compound this situation, there is often a considerably diminished interest in the issues they raise in the post truth commission phase. The objective of this research is to study the recommendations relating to reparations that truth commissions have issued. It examines how different stakeholders respond to the recommendations and the frameworks that have been set up (or not) to follow-up and implement specific recommendations. Two case studies, Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Ghana National Reconciliation Commission are selected. Whereas these two cases both recommended reparations for victims, different approaches for the follow-up were instituted, both in the reports and during the post truth commission phase. How is this related to the actual realities on the ground with regard to victims’ reparations? This research takes on four major issues in relation to truth commissions and reparations: the inclusion or omission of reparations in the mandate of truth commissions; the content of the recommendations (what reparation, for whom and to whom); the follow-up of the recommendations (agencies and frameworks) and, relevance of truth commissions in making recommendations for victims’ reparations. The research describes the different contexts for the inclusion of reparations within truth commissions and strategies for their implementation, and to this end, it proposes a model for studying the follow-up of recommendations on reparations made by truth commissions.BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMBERS OF THE EXAMINATION COMMITTEE.................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................... v Abstract................................................ vii BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................. xi DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS............................. xiii LIST OF FIGURES......................................... xxv LIST OF TABLES.......................................... xxv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................. xxvii GENERAL INTRODUCTION...................................... 3 PART I. SETTING OF THE STUDY.............................. 9 CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND METHODS........................ 11 PART II. THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTIONS....................... 43 CHAPTER 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: POST-TRUTH COMMISSION............................................... 73 CHAPTER 4. CRIMINOLOGY, TRUTH COMMISSIONS AND REPARATION 95 PART III. OVERVIEW OF THE SELECTED CASES ............... 115 CHAPTER 5: GHANA: “WAS THERE A TRC IN GHANA?”........... 117 CHAPTER 6: SIERRA LEONE: LONG ROAD TO REPARATION ........147 CHAPTER 7: SYNTHESISING THE TWO CASES................... 183 PART IV. RESULTS OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDY................. 195 CHAPTER 8. GHANA: “IT’S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT IS BETTER THAN NONE.” ................................................. 197 CHAPTER 9. SIERRA LEONE: IMPROVISING WITH LIMITED RESOURCES .........................................................253 CHAPTER 10. A GENERAL NOTE ON THE EMPIRICAL STUDY....... 325 PART V: TOWARDS A STUDY OF IMPLEMENTATION .............. 335 CHAPTER 11: UNDERSTANDING IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH....... 337 CHAPTER 12: FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING IMPLEMENTATION FOLLOWING TRUTH COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 355 GENERAL CONCLUSION...................................... 377 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................... 389 REFERENCES.............................................. 393nrpages: 434status: publishe