TRAUMA, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION LESSONS FROM RWANDA AND EX-YUGOSLAVIA.

TRAUMA, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION

LESSONS FROM RWANDA AND EX-YUGOSLAVIA

WE ARE FORCED TO LIVE TOGETHER..BECAUSE OF THAT WEARE ALL PRETENDING TO BE NICE AND LOVE EACH OTHER.BUTIT IS KNOWN THAT IHATE THEM AND THEY HATE ME. IT WILL BE THAT FOREVER.

MOSTAR RESIDENT, 2001

I DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS WORD “RECONCILIATION”. I CAN’TRECONCILE WITH PEOPLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE IN PRISON…IF A PERSONCOMES TO ASK MY FORGIVENESS, I WILL PARDON HIM AFTER HE HAS RESUSCITATED THE MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY THAT HE KILLED.

GENOCIDE SURVIVOR, RWANDA, 2002

WHAT IS JUSTICE?

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT TRIALS

• UNCOVERING AND PUBLICIZING TRUTH• PUNISHING PERPETRATORS• RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS• PROMOTING RULE OF LAW• PROMOTING RECONCILIATION•“HEALING” INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES

RECONCILIATION

• WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO REPAIR A COMMUNITY?

• DO PEOPLE SEEK JUSTICE AND IF SO, WHAT FORMS DOES IT TAKE?

• DO TRIALS EQUAL JUSTICE?

• HOW IS TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE RELATED TO RECONCILIATION?

Instead of Prozac - we can substitute “Trials”

Research Methods

• Surveys– Balkans: 1,600 people surveyed twice

12-24 months apart– Rwanda: 2,100 people

• Key Informant Interviews

• Focus Groups

• Ethnographic Studies

Research Question

How do societies torn apart by war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing pursue justice and, at the same time rebuild their divided communities?

Study Sites1999 - 2003

• Former Yugoslavia– Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina– Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina– Vukovar, Croatia– Refugee Settlements, Serbia and Montenegro

• RwandaVaried exposure to genocide– Ngoma (Butare Town)– Mabanza– Buyoga– Mutura

Bosnian Judges and Prosecutors1999-2000

32 participants with primary or appellate

jurisdiction for national war crimes trials

Bosniak, Croat and Serb Areas

In-depth semi-structured interviews

KEY FINDINGS

• WAR EXPERIENCES OF PARTICPANTS, SELF-IDENTIFICATION WITH A PARTICULAR NATIONAL GROUP AND EXPOSURE TO DOMINANT NARRATIVES ABOUT THE ROLE OF THEIR GROUP PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCES ATTITUDES TOWARDS TRIALS

• THE CLAIM OF VICTIMHOOD OVERRIDES

• THOSE WHO ACCEPT INTERNATIONAL CORROBORATION OF ATROCITIES MORE LIKELY TO DEMAND INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

BELIEVE ME THAT I AM TELLING YOU WHAT I FEEL BECAUSE I WASHERE DURING THE WAR AND I SURVIVED WITH MY FAMILY..AND IAM TELLING YOU NOW AS A HUMAN THAT PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE,ACCOUNTABLE AND GUILTY FOR ALL THOSE CRIMES SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE CRIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED THAT.

WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO FORGIVE SOMEBODY, HE’LL DO ITWITHOUT A COURT…IF WE ARE HUMAN, WE DON’T NEED A COURT.

PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE TRIBUNAL. BUT IT ISTHE ONLY LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. WITHOUT IT, THEREWOULD BE NO JUSTICE AND THIS WOULD BE THE FINAL BETRAYAL.

Community Effects of TrialsSocial and political effects

Reification of perpetrators

Collective innocence Protection of bystanders and beneficiaries

Hardening of nationalist (ethnic or other in-group perspectives)

Setting up an international court was a way ofpunishing the perpetrators of such crimes and at the same time hopefully establishing a cultureof law. However, because the court was inherently foreign to the very society that it was supposed to be helping, international justice has forfeited anyimpact on Rwandan society. By so doing, it has failed to achieve both its social and educational functions.

International Crisis Group

ICTR: Justice Delayed, 2001

DEFINING TRAUMAAT POPULATION LEVEL

• IN EX-YUGOSLAVIA, A VALIDATED SCALE WEIGHTED FOR EXPOSURE AND INTENSITY

• IN RWANDA, THE PCL (C) SCALE

DEFINING RECONCILIATION

• COMMUNITY

• INTERDEPENDENCE

• SOCIAL JUSTICE

• COMMITMENT TO NON-VIOLENCE

Attitudes toward the ICTY and War Crimes

Figure 7: Attitudes toward the ICTY

2.762.75

2.072.02

3.464.16

4.074.12

2.161.76

2.382.94

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Serbs-Vukovar

Serbs-Prijedor

Bosniaks-Prijedor

Bosniaks-Mostar

Croats-Mostar

Croats-Vukovar

2000/1 2002

Figure 8: Admission of war crimes committed by own nationality

95.0%98.5%

56.3%52.5%

77.1%

69.1%

63.1%75.9%

56.1%54.7%

65.6%68.2%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Serbs-Vukovar

Serbs-Prijedor

Bosniaks-Prijedor

Bosniaks-Mostar

Croats-Mostar

Croats-Vukovar

2000/1 2002

Figure 9: Acceptance of the members of the ŅopposingÓ nationality

7.847.92

2.645.64

4.883.28

3.604.80

3.284.48

4.725.12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

Serbs-Vukovar

Serbs-Prijedor

Bosniaks-Prijedor

Bosniaks-Mostar

Croats-Mostar

Croats-Vukovar

2000/1 2002

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

PTSD SYMPTOMS IN RWANDA

WE MEASURED SYMPTOMS OF PTSD ANDEXPOSURE TO SEVEN TYPES OF EVENTS

24.8% OF SAMPLE SHOWED SYMPTOMS

PREDICTORS OF THE SYMPTOMS WEREAGE AND GENDERTRAUMATIC EXPOSUREPROXIMITY TO CONFLICTETHNICITY AND ETHNIC DISTANCE

ATTITUDES TO TRIALS IN RWANDA

• 87 % OF RESPONDENTS POORLY OR NOT INFORMEDABOUT ICTR• 52% OF INFORMED SAY IT FUNCTIONS WELL• 54% SAY IT CONTRIBUTES TO RECONCILIATION•29% SAY ICTR WILL CONTRIBUTE SIGNFICANTLY TORECONCILIATION VS 74% WHO SAY RWANDAN TRIALS WILL• HUTU MORE POSITVE ABOUT ICTR• MUCH MORE SUPPORT FOR GACACA

TABLE 5: ODDS RATIOS (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) ATTITUDES TOWARDJUDICIAL PROCESSES AND RECONCILIATION ACCORDING TO TRAUMATICEXPOSURE LEVELOutcome Mean Traumatic

Exposure Level(Standard Error)

UnadjustedOdds Ratio(95% C.I.)

AdjustedOdds Ratio*(95% C.I.)

ATTITUDES TOWARD JUDICIAL RESPONSESICTR

Positive

Negative

3.35 (0.06)3.24 (0.05)

NS 1.10(1.04, 1.17)

Rwandan TrialPositive

Negative3.16 (0.04)3.56 (0.06)

NS 0.90(0.84, 0.96)

GacacaPositive

Negative3.24 (0.04)3.79 (0.13)

0.81(0.73, 0.89)

0.80(0.72, 0.89)

OPENNESS TO RECONCILIATION

Social JusticeSupportOppose

3.35 (0.05)3.18 (0.06)

NS NS

Non-violenceSupportOppose

3.19 (0.05)3.19 (0.05)

NS 0.92 (0.87,0.98)

Support CommunitySupportOppose

3.08 (0.05)3.49 (0.05)

0.86(0.81, 0.90)

0.92 (0.87,0.98)

InterdependentYesNo

3.18 (0.05)3.54 (0.06)

0.87(0.82, 0.93)

0.86 (0.81,0.92)

TABLE 4: ODDS RATIOS* (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) OF POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDJUDICIAL PROCESSES AND RECONCILIATION AMONG THOSE WITH PTSD SYMPTOMS

PTSD SYMPTOMSOutcomeNegative

n (%)Positive

n (%)

TOTAL UnadjustedOdds Ratio(95% C.I.)

AdjustedOdds Ratio*(95% C.I.)

ATTITUDES TOWARD JUDICIAL RESPONSESPositive Attitude TowardICTR

682 (43.4) 198 (38.2) 880 (42.1) NS NS

Positive Attitude TowardRwandan Trial

1111 (70.6) 306 (59.1) 1417 (67.8) 0.60(0.49, 0.73)

0.77(0.61,0.98)

Positive Attitude TowardGacaca

1453 (92.4) 446 (86.1) 1899 (90.8) 0.51(0.38,0.70)

NS

OPENNESS TO RECONCILIATION

Support Social Justice 988 (62.8) 341 (65.8) 1329 (63.6) NS NS

Support Non-violence 707 (46.3) 224 (44.6) 931 (43.9) NS NS

Support Community 817 (51.9) 191 (36.9) 1008 (48.2) 0.54(0.44, 0.66)

0.76(0.60,0.97)

DemonstratedInterdependence

1061 (70.0) 292 (59.6) 1353 (67.5) 0.63(0.51, 0.78)

0.71(0.56, 0.91)

TABLE 9: CONTRIBUTION OF ICTR AND RWANDAN TRIALS TORECONCILIATION

ICTR(%)

Rwandan Trials(%)

No Contribution 481(32.0%) 78(4.0%)

Limited Contribution 208(13.8%) 110(5.6%)

Moderate Contribution 370(24.6%) 317(16.2%)

Significant Contribution 324(21.6%) 787(40.3%)

Very SignificantContribution

119(7.9%) 660(33.8%)

Total with Opinion 1502(71.9%)

1952(93.4%)

Not informed 588(28.1%) 138(6.6%)Total Responses 2090 2090

Chi-Square= 467.59, df=25, p-value<0.001

TRAUMA, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION

• IN BALKANSNO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

EXPERIENCE OF TRAUMA AND DESIRE FOR TRIALSFOR THOSE TRAUMATIZED, PRIOR

NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE WITH “THE OTHER” LEADS TO RESISTANCE TO RECONCILIATION

FOR THOSE WITH PRIOR POSITIVE EXPERIENCESWITH “THE OTHER” AND A WILLINGNESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEIR GROUP COMMITTED WARCRIMES, THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRIALSAND RECONCILIATION

TRAUMA. JUSTICE, AND RECONCILIATION

• IN RWANDA

PTSD SYMPTOMS INFLUENCE ATTITUDES TOCERTAIN TYPES OF TRIALS AND TO SOMEMEASURES OF RECONCILATION E.G. BELIEF INCOMMUNITY AND INTERPDEPENDENCE

TRAUMA EXPOSURE SIMILARLY INFLUENCES ATTITUDES TO CERTAIN TYPES OF TRIALS ANDTO INTERDEPENDENCE, COMMUNITY AND WILLINGNESS TO USE VIOLENCE

CONCLUSIONS

1. NO DIRECT LINK BETWEEN CRIMINAL TRIALSAND RECONCILIATION2. FOR SURVIVORS, THE IDEA OF “JUSTICE” IS MUCH MORE BROADLY DEFINED THAN TRIALS3. NO DIRECT LINK BETWEEN TRAUMA EXPOSURE AND DESIRE FOR TRIALS4. SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION IS A SLOW PROCESSTHAT OCCURS AT MULTIPLE LEVELS.5. SOCIAL JUSTICE (ECONOMIC AND SOCIALWELL-BEING) IS CRITICAL TO SOCIAL REPAIR

Trials and Public AwarenessEducation of the population about what trials can do

Education of the public about the events that are revealed in the trial record

Countering the process of collective innocence

Education of the young about the history that led to genocide or ethnic cleansing

Truth commissions

ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF RESPONSE TO SOCIAL BREAKDOWN

Social BreakdownBreakdown of institutions (legal,

political, educational,social, economic)

Social ReconstructionJustice

DemocracyProsperity

Reconciliation

Legal InterventionsCriminal trials

(international and domestic)

Evidence CollectionExhumations

TestimonyCrime scene investigation

State-level AlternativesTo Legal InterventionTruth Commissions

Psychosocial InterventionsIndividual/Family

State-level InterventionsRestoration of political, legal,economic, social institutions,

refugee returns

Community InterventionsEducation, reparations to communities,

memorials, economic, development,restitution of cultural property,

conflict resolution

Community-Generated ResponsesExhumations of mass graves

Identification processesRituals of community

mourning

COMPONENTS OF SOCIALRECONSTRUCTION

•SECURITY•FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT•RULE OF LAW•ACCESS TO ACCURATE (UNBIASED) INFORM,ATION•JUSTICE•EDUCATION•ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•CROSS-ETHNIC ENGAGEMENT

COLLECTIVE GUILT, COLLECTIVE INNOCENCE ANDTHE LIMITATIONS OF TRIALS