Blog Elements – Page 514

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

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, […]

Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity – new ICJ report

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

Myanmar’s government must take concrete action to counteract decades of military impunity for human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report published today. The report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmarfinds that gross human rights violations in Myanmar rarely go punished, particularly in conflict areas. Justice remains elusive for victims and their […]

More Than Words: Apologies as a Form of Reparation

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity – new ICJ report

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

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

Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity – new ICJ report

January 18, 2018/in Other Human Rights Reports

Myanmar’s government must take concrete action to counteract decades of military impunity for human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report published today.

The report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmarfinds that gross human rights violations in Myanmar rarely go punished, particularly in conflict areas.

Justice remains elusive for victims and their families as a result of laws, institutions and investigative practices that protect members of security forces from prosecution, the ICJ says.

“Decades of denial of justice for victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and impunity for the perpetrators, particularly when involving the military, have severely eroded the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Secretary General.

“The Myanmar government must now take concrete steps to combat impunity, especially for the military,” he added.

The release of the ICJ’s report follows last week’s statement from the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military, acknowledging that security forces had participated in the killing of ten Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State’s Inn Dinn Village.

It is the Tatmadaw’s first admission of serious crimes perpetrated by security forces during its ‘clearance operations’, which have resulted in mass displacement and human rights violations, following attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on 25 August 2017.

Military and security personnel in Myanmar seldom face justice for human rights violations, because they are protected by legal provisions of the 2008 Constitution, the 1959 Defence Services Act and the 1995 Police Force Maintenance of Discipline Law, which include immunities and special courts that shield soliders, police and officials from public criminal prosecutions for serious crimes, the ICJ notes.

The ICJ’s report finds that investigations into allegations of rights violations rarely result in effective prosecutions or redress.

Eight case studies – from Kachin, Karen, Mon and Rakhine states – illustrate how victims and their families, as well as journalists and human rights defenders, lack access to justice and are even harassed for seeking it.

“Admission of culpability for this one incident is an important first step and must be followed by a full and proper investigation, and justice for the victims and their families,” said Zarifi.

“The dire human rights situation in northern Rakhine State, and in conflict areas such as in Shan and Kachin states, neccessitates credible, independent and impartial investigations with a view to publicly prosecute those responsible for unlawful acts and their commissioning.”

“Options available to the parliament and to the executive include addressing barriers to accountability, by reforming laws that protect security forces involved in serious crimes, and by aligning investigative procedures with international standards,” he added.

Contact

Alex Conte, ICJ Global Accountability Coordinator (Geneva), t: +41 79 957 2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org

Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 6 4478 1121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Background

Special inquiries comissioned by the Government of Myanmar into allegations of human rights violations generally fail the test of independence and impartiality, or are severely undermined by inadequate resources and or restricted mandates.

These inquiries rarely result in effective prosecutions or access to remedies and reparation.

Members of security forces, when prosecuted, usually appear in military or special police courts, which generally impose low or meaningless sanctions that are wholly inconsistent with penalties applicable in Myanmar’s Penal Code.

Laws governing military and police acts are inadequate for the victims of human rights violations because they do not contemplate the provision of remedies and reparation.

There is very limited precedent or established practice for the provision of effective remedies or reparation for victims of criminal acts in Myanmar, particularly when such crimes involve human rights violations by State actors.

Wittingly or unwittlingly, relevant authorities routinely violate national laws that prescribe procedures for the conduct of criminal investigations and prosecutions, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations.

Violations of basic fair trial rights, included in national laws, are commonplace.

State authorities continue to exert improper influence on politically-sensitive court cases including those involving allegations of gross human rights violations.

Courts tend to not intervene where human rights violations are occuring nor do they guarantee non-repitition where they have occurred.

Prosecutors rarely, if ever, accept petitions from victims of gross human rights violations to initiate criminal proceedings.

The judicial harrassment of victims of human rights violations is commonplace in Myanmar when victims, their families or lawyers seek remedies or reparation through the courts or other mechanisms.

Defamation and unlawful association are among the criminal charges commonly instituted by authorities, including against journalists investigating human rights violations or working in conflict areas.

Overall, Myanmar’s prosecutors lack the independence to effectively prosecute acts involving human rights violations.

Interference with and intimidation of lawyers, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving human rights violations, undermines their to effectively represent clients and to pursue effective remedies and reparations.

Download

Myanmar-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2018-ENG (full report in PDF)

A Burmese version of this story will be added soon.

www.icj.org

Spring Revolution

Civil Society Position Paper on ASEAN’s Goal of a Myanmar-Owned and -Led SolutionDecember 18, 2024 - 12:11 pm
Recommendations to ASEAN and Its Member States (1) Move beyond the 5PC to achieve a Myanmar people-led and people-centered solution to the crisis in Myanmar. ASEAN’s “Myanmar-owned and -led” approach must be backed by genuine political will that aligns with and supports the collective aspirations of the people of Myanmar. (2) Cease all pressure on […]
The Airstrikes after the journey to the China of the Junta Military LeaderDecember 10, 2024 - 1:28 pm
Operation 1027 was a coordinated military attack against the junta on October 27th, 2023. It was carried out by the Northern Brotherhood, which includes the Arakan Army, Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army. Several months later, the Three Brotherhood Alliance held three meetings to negotiate with China on January 11 […]
Human Rights Situation weekly update (September 15 to 21, 2024)September 27, 2024 - 8:26 am
Human Rights Violations took place in States and Regions from Sep 15 to 21, 2024 Military Junta Troop launched airstrikes and dropped bombs in Sagaing Region, Mandalay Region, Shan State, Chin State, Rakhine State, and Kachin State from September 15th to 21st. The Military Junta committed arresting, occupying the properties, threatening by using power, and […]

Multimedia

Reparation (Cartoon Animation)December 21, 2024 - 8:08 am
Human Rights Basic 4 signs Cartoon AnimationDecember 8, 2024 - 9:07 am
Human Rights Cartoon AnimationDecember 8, 2024 - 9:03 am
JusticeOctober 7, 2024 - 10:28 am

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