However, in their interactions with victims, NGOs must frequently meet their expectations in more subtle manners. Affected persons may well prefer, temporarily or permanently, not to take part in the criminal process… without renouncing their other claims such as truth, reparations, and protection against future violations. NGOs are arguably the first, often with the support of the academic world, to try to promote the extension of the scope of the fight against impunity to legal claims other than the sole right to criminal justice.
This is often a neglected but very important aspect for victims, which goes beyond compensation. We should also think about opening up a new range of action, rarely addressed as yet, aimed at preventing the promotion of a soldier suspected of violations, or at punishing a judge or doctor covering up acts of torture or enforced disappearances. There are so many other ways of intervening, from public denunciations to amicus curiae , that it would be tedious to go through them all.
Suffice it to recall here that NGOs, in the field of combating impunity, work at many levels other than just that of actual cases. Without this fundamental work, it is clear that international criminal justice would be far less effective than it is today.
Share This:. An op-ed by Philip Grant In the fight against impunity, NGOs have a fundamentally different, and often complementary role to that of institutional or academic actors. The rise of universal jurisdiction The third axis in which NGOs play a great role is the triggering of new domestic cases through universal jurisdiction.
Beyond criminal trials The last axis, perhaps the least developed so far, concerns the complementarity of the different legal claims made by the victims. Sign up to our newsletter.
Iraq: UN concerned about targeting civil society activists participating in demonstrations UN concerned about political pressure on the judiciary in Lebanon. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.
Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent.
TRIAL International is a non-governmental organization fighting impunity for international crimes and supporting victims in their quest for justice. What We Do. TRIAL International provides legal assistance to victims, litigates cases, develops local capacity and pushes the human rights agenda forward.
Where We Work. Latest News Opinions. The Gambia. Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Thomas , the District Court issued two protective orders — one at the motion to dismiss stage, one at summary judgment — instituting procedural safeguards that struck the difficult balance between witness security concerns and any resultant prejudice to the public or defendant.
The court determined that only these redacted versions of the sworn statements were to be disclosed to the defendant and filed on the public docket. The defendant did not take a position on these protective measures. When granting the supplemental protective order, the court recognized the direct correlation between the ongoing threat of retaliation and the ability of individuals to participate in the proceedings.
As a result, this Court will grant the new Protective Order. This case study underlines the crucial, often-overlooked role that protective safeguards and security measures play in the pursuit of international justice for atrocity crimes. Of course, extreme care and diligent balancing of countervailing interests, including the rights of the accused, are needed before permitting anonymity.
Further, there may be limitations to the applicability of Thomas given its. Certain limitations including the non-disclosure of identities may therefore be permissible depending on the gravity of the safety concerns.
In the Liberia case, although certain individual identities remain confidential, the continued use of pseudonyms and the availability of the redacted versions of the sworn declarations still enables access to hundreds of pages of record evidence cataloging the alleged events of the Lutheran Church Massacre, including the widespread and systematic attack against civilians based on their purported membership in particular ethnic groups in the weeks leading up to the slaughter.
It is unfortunate that the court in Koblenz did not take further measures to protect the identities of witnesses throughout the trial. Dozens of witnesses were still incredibly courageous, and willing to take the risk to testify against Anwar R.
0コメント