Blog Elements – Page 497

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Incitement trial against former child soldier will continue, judge rules

January 18, 2018/in News

Hopes that the judge presiding over a controversial court case involving a former child soldier would drop the incitement charge brought against him were dashed on Wednesday as the magistrate in Yangon’s Dagon Seikkan Township decided to allow the prosecution to proceed. The former child soldier Aung Ko Htwe, his lawyer and family members had […]

More Than Words: Apologies as a Form of Reparation

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

1/27/2016 Official public apologies are an important element of a transitional justice policy. As a form of symbolic reparation, an apology is a formal, solemn and, in most cases, public acknowledgement that human rights violations were committed in the past, that they caused serious and often irreparable harm to victims, and that the state, group, […]

Incitement trial against former child soldier will continue, judge rules

January 18, 2018/in News

More Than Words: Apologies as a Form of Reparation

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Incitement trial against former child soldier will continue, judge rules

January 18, 2018/in News

The former child soldier Aung Ko Htwe, his lawyer and family members had thought the judge might rule against continuing the trial, in which the defendant has been charged under section 505(b) of the Penal Code after he gave an interview to Radio Free Asia (RFA) recounting his experiences as a minor conscripted into the military. The Penal Code provision prohibits statements made “with intent to cause, or which [are] likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility.”

Aung Ko Htwe faces up to two years in prison if convicted. He was arrested on 18 August, about a week after his interview with RFA was published.

The defendant’s lawyer Zaw Min Hlaing told journalists after Wednesday’s hearing that the prosecution had failed to reach out to the relevant Defence Ministry departments to determine the veracity of the experiences recounted by the defendant in his interview with RFA. The lawyer also questioned the basis of the plaintiff’s standing in the case, as a relatively high-ranking lieutenant colonel who would not likely have dealings with child soldiers on the bottom rungs of the military command hierarchy.

“They [the plaintiff and prosecution witnesses] don’t know what Aung Ko Htwe faced during that time because they are high-level officials. Also they should have inquired as to whether the words of Aung Ko Htwe are true or not,” he said.

According to Aung Ko Htwe’s lawyer, the defence will call eight witnesses to testify as the trial proceeds, including Burma’s commander-in-chief, Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing.

“The commander-in-chief has given consideration to the issue of child soldiers and a lot of child soldiers have been released during his term. That’s why we put his name on the witnesses’ list,” said lawyer Zaw Min Hlaing, but adding: “I’m not sure that he will come to court.”

Aung Ko Htwe told the court that he was not guilty of violating section 505 b) and had simply answered the RFA interviewer’s questions about his feelings, difficulties and experiences as a child soldier.

“I told RFA my feelings. I had no intention of defaming the military,” he said.

Nay Zar Htun, a sister of Aung Ko Htwe, told DVBthat she planned to protest against the military on 19 January in Naypyidaw, despite local authorities objecting to her specifically pointing the finger at the military for her brother’s hardships as a child soldier.

“I will also submit letters to the Office of the Commander-in-Chief and the Supreme Court of the Union on 19 January,” she said.

More Than Words: Apologies as a Form of Reparation

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

1/27/2016

Official public apologies are an important element of a transitional justice policy. As a form of symbolic reparation, an apology is a formal, solemn and, in most cases, public acknowledgement that human rights violations were committed in the past, that they caused serious and often irreparable harm to victims, and that the state, group, or individual apologizing is accepting some or all of the responsibility for what happened. Th e decision to make an apology can and should be used to support a just and moral vision that enables victims and the public to have hope in the future.

Download report in English.
Download report in Spanish.
Download report in French.

It has become more common for political leaders to apologize publicly to victims, their families, and communities, often during a formal national address or other ceremonial event. Such apologies have taken place in the midst of cease-fire and peace processes, made not only by those holding public offi ce, such as heads of state, ministers, judges, and the heads of the police, military, and intelligence services, but also by paramilitary leaders. Apologies delivered by state agents signal the full backing of the state for what is being conveyed.

Apologies are not enough as reparation to victims of serious violations. While apologies have value in themselves and can address both moral and physical harm, they should be combined with material forms of reparation. In particular, care needs to be taken to ensure that a disproportionate emphasis on apologies does not diminish the likelihood that other reparative measures, such as restitution and medical care, will be implemented, to help limit the long-term harm caused to victims or address their physical needs.

Apologies should, in many cases, refl ect a communal reckoning with crimes of the past. They describe what has been learned and what needs to be done to prevent such events from ever happening again; sometimes they mark either the commencement or the culmination of a long, sometimes divisive period of debate and reflection in a society. In many cases, it is victims and organizations of survivors who provide the main impetus for pursuing an apology and help to decide when and how an apology might best be given.

Whatever the catalyst, apologies (and the process for developing them) can help a country to replace, at least partially, partisan recriminations with constructive dialogue and unite the public behind the common goals it needs to achieve to move forward. Th e process of developing consensus around the need for an apology can help societies to face their past, reaffirm values, and meet their obligations to victims as human beings and citizens in the present and in the future.

Because official apologies are most often public acts, they usually attract considerable media attention and scrutiny. Therefore, the content, delivery, tone, and proper timing of an apology are crucial. Th e most effective apologies are unequivocal; they are not diluted by qualifying language designed to limit their scope or redirect blame. For victims, it may matter whether an apology is written, handed over on paper, or read or spoken aloud. Likewise, the language spoken, the access to written, spoken, or recorded materials, the venue in which it is made, even the body language and appearance of the person delivering the apology are all significant. Some of the most meaningful apologies have occurred at the place where the violations occurred.

Although most offi cial apologies provide a form of comfort to victims, some have been judged harshly for being poorly conceived, insincere, and ineffective. Expressions of regret, for instance, are most frequently statements of sadness and disappointment that fall short of an apology, whereas unequivocal apologies contain a more explicit if not unconditional acknowledgment of responsibility. They acknowledge the specific injustices that occurred, recognize that victims suffered serious harm as a result, and take responsibility for what happened.

Effective apologies take into account what victims are likely to feel and think about what is being said. In fact, the most effective apologies are arguably those that have been agreed on with survivors, families of victims, or their representatives, and which address the future and not just the past. Th ey assure victims—and the rest of society—that victims were not at fault for what happened and emphasize common values shared by everyone in society.
While apologies on their own cannot fully restore trust nor ever provide the full relief that victims and a society need to heal, they play an important role in giving meaning to reparations and promoting efforts to reform institutions and guarantee non-repetition of violations and can be an important step toward reconciliation, on the journey toward lasting peace.

Conclusions

Th e content, delivery, tone, and proper timing of an apology are crucial, as is its sequencing with other transitional mechanisms, including other apologies. In some cases, like Canada’s apology for Indian Residential schools, several forms of acknowledgment preceded Canadian Prime Minister John Harper’s apology, including state-sponsored reports, the settlement of a class-action lawsuit, and the implementation of reparation payments and services.

Often apologies follow recommendations by truth-seeking bodies, like Kenya’s TJRC, that have provided concrete guidance on how to define the necessary apologies and the wrongs they should recognize. In other cases, it has been victims and victims’ groups that have provided the main impetus for pursuing an apology and for helping to decide when and how an apology might best be given; their input is essential.

Public apologies are an important element of a transitional justice policy. When carried out in a way that is meaningful and sensitive to the moral and material needs of survivors and victims, they can effectively convey recognition, in some cases for the first time, of what survivors and victims suffered or lost. When solemnly and unequivocally given, apologies convey a clear acknowledgement of the responsibility of the state and individuals not only for the harm done, but for the causes of the conflict or repression that led to those harms. In this way, they play an important role in giving meaning to reparations and promoting efforts to reform institutions and guarantee non-repetition.

The process of developing consensus around the need for an apology can help societies to face their past, reaffirm shared values, and meet their obligations to victims as human beings and citizens in the present and in the future. Although apologies alone can never completely provide the relief that victims and a society need to heal, they can be an important step toward reconciliation and sustainable peace.

ICTJ-Report-Apologies-2015.pdf

Spring Revolution

Human Rights Situation weekly update (September 8 to 14, 2024)September 20, 2024 - 2:30 pm
Human Rights Violations took place in States and Regions from Sep 8 to 14, 2024 Military Junta Troop launched airstrikes and dropped bombs in the Magway Region, Shan State, Kachin State, and Rakhine State from September 8th to 14th. Military Junta arrested the civilians as human shields from Mindon Township, Magway Region, and Salingyi Township, […]
Human Rights Situation weekly update (September 1 to 7, 2024)September 13, 2024 - 5:08 pm
Human Rights Violations took place in States and Regions from Sep 1 to 7, 2024 Military Junta Troop launched airstrikes and dropped bombs in the Sagaing Region, Mandalay Region, Magway Region, and Shan State from September 1st to 7th. The Military Junta threatened that they would launch airstrikes on the townships which they lost. The […]
Human Rights Situation weekly update (Aug 22 to 31, 2024)September 7, 2024 - 4:09 pm
Human Rights Violations took place in States and Regions from Aug 22 to 31, 2024 Military Junta Troop launched airstrikes and dropped bombs in the Sagaing Region, Magway Region, Bago Region, Mandalay Region, Tanintharyi Region, and Shan State from August 22nd to 31st. Head of Prison which works under Military Junta, tortured and blackmailed the […]

Multimedia

What is the Truth (Cartoon Animation)May 31, 2024 - 4:58 pm
What is Transitional Justice (Cartoon Animation)May 3, 2024 - 8:38 am
Close the SkyApril 11, 2024 - 7:45 am
Forced MarriageJanuary 9, 2024 - 2:12 pm

ND Burma

ND-Burma formed in 2004 in order to provide a way for Burma human rights organizations to collaborate on the human rights documentation process. The 13 ND-Burma member organizations seek to collectively use the truth of what communities in Burma have endured to advocate for justice for victims. ND-Burma trains local organizations in human rights documentation; coordinates members’ input into a common database using Martus, a secure open-source software; and engages in joint-advocacy campaigns.

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Conclusions

ND Burma

Recent Posts