Op-Ed: Towards results-based transitional justice for Syria

The debate over transitional justice in Syria has been nearly confined to its definition, design and mechanisms: truth commissions, special courts, institutional reform, civil peace and more. However, focusing on the form of the process alone is not enough. 

Have we overlooked the essential question? What about the results? The mechanisms—no matter how carefully designed—are only tools. Their real value lies in what they can achieve on the ground. 

Learning from the attempts of other nations is the cornerstone of arriving at the right form of transitional justice for Syria. Learning is a process aimed at changing behaviors or improving performance based on experience, and any effective learning process identifies a successful approach based on its outcomes. 

Simply put, we truly learn when we evaluate what has been achieved—not only what has been done, or what tools have been used. 

This principle is not limited to individual or institutional learning within the borders of a single country, but extends to include nations and peoples learning from each other. When we look at the experiences of other countries, in economic development, political reforms, educational systems or even transitional justice approaches, the true measure of success lies not in definitions, design perfection or the details of the mechanisms applied, but in the tangible results those experiences achieved. 

What unites transitional justice experiences around the world is a diversity of form and results. Each context has unique circumstances and challenges. While some elements are similar and experts agree on key points, the results of their application are strikingly different. Some attempts have had successes in addressing violations and promoting reconciliation, but failed to achieve other elements. In some cases, divisions have been exacerbated, or victims denied compensation. 

We should move from defining the form or design of transitional justice to considering what transitional justice has achieved around the world. Which tools were most successful? Which failed? What can we learn from the actual results? 

Transitional justice, in terms of the outcome, is more than a set of legal mechanisms. It is a complex, long-term process aimed at achieving social transformations: rebuilding trust, healing wounds, providing reparations, holding perpetrators accountable, strengthening the rule of law and preventing violations from recurring. 

To achieve these ends, we must evaluate what has been achieved and what has not, to learn from the successes and failures and ensure that transitional justice in Syria is based on evidence and results.

Read more: Op-Ed: Civil peace and transitional justice intertwined paths in Syria

Rwanda: Quantity over quality

After the 1994 genocide, Rwanda implemented a complex transitional justice system that included the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the national judicial system and local community courts (gacaca courts). 

Despite enormous efforts and relative success, Rwanda’s experiment faced great challenges in achieving the expected results. Local courts were controversial for relying on untrained judges, and were accused of bias, corruption and not following fair trial standards. 

The pressure to try as many perpetrators as possible led to a decrease in the quality of the trials, impacting the credibility of the process as a whole. These mechanisms were also unable to achieve real, deep reconciliation in a deeply divided society, with accusations arising that some sentences exacerbated tension, rather than easing it. 

Reparations programs have also not been sufficient to address the enormous scale of victims’ suffering, leaving many of them feeling neglected and unfairly treated. 

Latin America: Impunity and entrenched injustice

In several Latin American countries, transitional justice experiences were marked by the use of broad amnesties for those responsible for violations in order to ensure a peaceful transition of power. 

While this contributed to political stability, it prevented the criminal accountability of many perpetrators. They escaped punishment, leaving a great sense of injustice among the victims. Reparations programs have been inadequate or untimely.

The amnesty laws meant criminal justice was not served for many crimes, leaving a legacy of impunity and undermining confidence in the rule of law. 

Towards results-based transitional justice

If we do not carefully and deeply analyze these results, we will repeat the same mistakes, and fail to adapt transitional justice mechanisms to Syria’s unique contexts. Learning from successes and failures means focusing on what really happened, not on how it was supposed to happen. 

We should study the results of transitional justice experiments with an eye to accountability mechanisms for perpetrators, reparations for victims and preventing recurrence. This requires us to be realistic, and go beyond theoretical ideals. 

We must constantly ask ourselves: Do these mechanisms make a real difference in people’s lives? Will they lead to a more just and stable society? If the answer is no, then no matter how ideal the design or form, it will not succeed in achieving its goal. 

Building community trust depends on people’s sense of justice. Only tangible results can restore the fragile trust between citizens and the state. Achieving true reconciliation also requires recognizing truth and accountability, and this process cannot succeed without the victims and the public seeing that justice has indeed been done. 

Studying the outcomes of efforts to prevent the recurrence of violence—through institutional reforms and strengthening the rule of law—helps clarify whether these reforms are real, or merely cosmetic changes. In short, focusing on results moves the transitional process from a mere set of measures to a real and sustained impact.

It is necessary to move beyond focusing on the theoretical shape of transitional justice experiments and mechanisms, and to start looking at their actual results around the world—in both the short and long term. 

The success of transitional justice is measured not by the number and forms of committees or laws imposed, but by the extent to which they are able to achieve justice for victims and promote long-term social stability. 

This report was originally published in Arabic and translated into English by Mateo Nelson.