Search

What happens to people who are accused of atrocity crimes at the bar of public opinion, are publicly indicted, prosecuted, tried, acquitted of criminal charges and then released? Does the mud stick? Or can the dirt also turn into gold, after legal exoneration and possible compensation? This article seeks to trigger a conversation on the international justice community’s stance on condemnation, compensation and convalescence. Through several versatile histories and stories, it gauges how exonerated persons have been navigating life after acquittal. To what extent have they managed to reverse, or recover from, their previous scandalizations, and if so: how? In thinking about this question, we problematize international justice community protagonists and prosecution services’ modus operandi (and effects) of scandalizing first and prosecuting alleged atrocitaires later. We observe that under the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s current circumstances (operating like a cage in search of birds) more suspects have been scandalized than convicted, but that often the scandal lingers. We conclude that for most acquitted persons requesting post-trial compensation is a dead end, and that doing so for some might further increase reputational damage. While several acquitted people ultimately remained defamed, some exonerated persons fully recovered from the human rights scandal by redefining compensation, and by turning the table and scandalizing the ICC.

In a fully packed courtroom in The Hague District Court, on 15 December 2017, the International Crimes Chamber convicted Eshetu Alemu for war crimes committed between 1978 and 1981 in Ethiopia. Absent at the judgment hearing, Alemu was sentenced to life imprisonment for these historical injustices. Five of his torture survivors received damages. During the short yet intense trial, Alemu testified at large, while victims came to the Netherlands to recount their ordeals. In many ways, it was a remarkable and unique case of universal jurisdiction, historical complementarity and transitional justice. In fact, the 10-day trial was one of the most intense, unique and historical trials I had attended in the past 15 years. In this Note from the Field, I discuss the forgotten episode of transitional justice in Ethiopia, outline the modern Dutch system of post-atrocity crime justice, unravel the substance of the case and feature the trial proceedings.

The trial of Chad’s former President Hissène Habré in 2015 was heartily anticipated and then heralded as an ‘African solution to African problems’. In myriad ways, the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) in Senegal’s court system indeed picketed a momentous transitional justice experience. It was simultaneously international, regional and local. It applied the universal jurisdiction principle. It judged a former and foreign head of state. It dealt with a ‘cold case’ from the Cold War. This was unprecedented in Africa and elsewhere. Crucially, the Habré trial departed from a ‘distant’, alienating trend of symbolic justice for African atrocities promised by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In Dakar, justice was pursued, performed and profited by those indirectly and directly victimized by the accused, while the passionate courtroom dynamics were palatably and transparently broadcasted. Notwithstanding these topical novelties, this article traces a more complex, more remote, and at times forgotten genealogy of transitional justice in Africa. By historicizing, contextualizing and exemplifying the Habré trial in light of unseen precedents from, inter alia, Congo Free State, Namibia, Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia, it seeks to add historical layers of complexity to portrayals of Africa as passive object in the evolution of international criminal justice.