Transitional Justice : Strengthening the framework of Rule of Law

Picture Courtesy: DNL Legal and Style

Introduction
 The concept of rule of law is ingrained in the social and cultural fabric of India. It was advocated in some form or the other during the early Vedic period in the ancient scriptures such as Veda, Upanishad, sage Yajnavalkya’s Smriti, Manusmriti, Mahabharata (Vyas Maharshi), Ramayana and Kautilya’s Arthasastra etc,
A society which is in a post conflict period, is handicapped due to infliction of mass atrocities in the past. Its masses had faced injustice, inequalities, humilities and grave violations of human rights by the earlier oppressive regimes. In such a backdrop the rule of law is in a faded form. This is primarily due the loss of faith and trust in the government and the holders of power be it executive, legislature or judiciary. Transitional justice aims to pacify this tensed situation through various judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. It aims at peace, equality, human dignity, making the State machineries and institutions accountable and answerable for their failure to maintain peace and implanting the lost faith of the nationals in the state machinery and the legal system.Â
At the international spectrum, the countries are moving towards a democratic regime. The doctrine rule of law, due to its inherent benefits has emerged one of the central themes of governance. Nonetheless, maintenance of peace and order is as much a challenge before an ancient democratic nation as to a nation in a period of transition from war to peace. The societies which belong to the latter category are naïve with respect to their political, legal and judicial systems hence instilling a sense of belief in the state machineries is vital. Justice when afforded at this stage of transition helps rebuilt the framework of rule of law. In a post conflict society, transitional justice aids in strengthening the framework of Rule of Law.Â
The post conflict societies are in need of urgent rehabilitation. When the nations step into democratic regime, regaining the trust of the masses whose human rights were violated in a grave manner is necessary in order to maintain lasting peace, respect and faith in the institutions and ensure that there prevails a rule of law. This can be achieved through the mechanism of transitional justice.Â
Rule of Law: Meaning and DevelopmentÂ
The sustenance of any civilization is largely depended on the manner in which it disciplines its working. The kinds of discipline can be broadly classified into autocracy and democracy. Autocracy entails the rule of the person, that is, the monarch who heads all the activities of the society. The monarch is the ultimate human authority, whose word is the rule and there is no rule above it. By contrast, democracy involves the rule of the masses. The term democracy is resultant of the two Greek words, ‘demos’ which means people and ‘kratos’ meaning power. It is a concept wherein certain selected people manage the affairs of a society. The parameters on which the affairs are to be regulated is determined by the people of the society. Therefore, in a democracy, we may say, there is a rule of consensus.

The term Rule of Law is a derivative of the French phrase ‘la principe de legalite’ which translates to ‘the principle of legality’. Anthony Valcke in The Rule of law: Its Origins and Meanings, writes, where the government and the people are governed by the authority of law and are bound by its principles that society is said to be prevailed by the concept of rule of law. This also implies there is absence of autocracy and arbitrariness in the governance. According to the formalistic view, the law governing the state must conform to certain minimum requirements. It says, law irrespective of how it is must be respected. This is also known as “thin rule of law”. The substantive view or the “thick rule of law” integrates justice and fairness elements within the rule of law. Plato, a Greek philosopher, in The Laws (circa 360 B.C.), propounded the idea that a rule of law and not of men should triumph in society. Aristotle, the disciple of Plato, furthered his idea. Aristotle in The Politics (circa 350 B.C.) based his reasoning on the fact that men (humans) are bound to be moved by desires and passion which may lead to tyranny, but law is unmoved by them and is based on human reason and made for the societal good. Influenced by this philosophy, the Romans understood that the law must be just for the benefit of one and all. This is reflected in the writings of Cicero in De Legibus (circa 54-51 B.C.). However, with the codification of Roman law during the reign of Emperor Justinian I, the concept of rule of men pervaded the Roman society.Â
During the medieval Europe, the Roman Empire disintegrated, there was a tussle between the Pope and the king to establish their supremacy over the religious and secular affairs. Pope Gregory VII issued a Dictatus Papae in 1703 which enabled the religious dictates to gain supremacy in regulating the affairs of the society and thereafter the monarchs would take an oath affirming the church’s supreme authority and a commitment to uphold the law. As the German and Roman texts vanished, customs formed the basis of rules. The monarch was treated as the protector of law in the German lands which were not invaded by the Romans. This philosophy laid deep impressions on the western and European thought. Later during this period, the lost literature was discovered. Saint Thomas Acquinas in his literature Summa Theologicae (1265 to1274) laid down the theory of natural law. In this he appreciated Aristotle’s idea of rule of law, St. Aquinas further proposed that though the rulers are immune from legal obligations, nevertheless, they should respect the law as it they who have made it. Hence, the Roman law ideology of supremacy of the sovereign faded with the advent of earlier philosophy that he law is superior to the law giver. In the meantime, the Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1215, it has great influence on the American Constitution’s ‘due process clause’ relating to the right of fair trial. This document declared that seizure of liberty or property of any person can only take effect if so is lawfully judged either by his or her counterparts or by the law prevalent. Hence, the concept that the monarch also has to abide by the law gained strength in Europe. The classic example, stated by Anthony Valcke, is the Civil War of England (1642-1651) which took place as a revolt against the arbitrary raising of taxes, curbing dissents and religious reforms by King Charles I. Resultantly, he was declared disloyal and executed.Â
With the growth of society, the interests of people also grew and they sought greater protection of their interests. This paved the way for the liberalist ideologies. John Lock, the ‘father’ of liberalism considered freedom from restraint and violence as essential considerations of liberty. In 1948, Montesquieu propounded the doctrine of separation of powers to prevent government from abusing its powers and ensure preservation of liberty. Thus, Rule of law is a central concept at the heart of liberalism.
Introduction to Study of the Laws of the Constitution (1885) by Albert V. Dicey, a British Constitutionalist was the maiden account of any literature providing a concrete meaning to the term Rule of law which prevails in the contemporary times. His understanding of the term is from three perspectives. He says, a person can be punished only for violating a law already laid down and the ordinary courts are the only competent authorities who can determine the occurrence of such violation. The rule of law is therefore incompatible with the “exercise of wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint” by government officials. Secondly, the law treats everybody equally. This proposition entails accountable the government officials whose acts are voilative of the law. The monarch, however, is not made accountable in this theory. Thirdly, Dicey sourced the rule of law to the judicial pronouncement recognising the rights if the individuals. He regarded the courts as the custodian of individual rights, who shall safeguard them against the arbitrary actions of the government. Author Valcke cites the British constitutional framework to put forth the idea that, the cultural fabric of a nation should be such that instils a deep respect for law. On a related note, the tyranny of the majority, as per Alexis de Tocqueville can be curtailed by a robust and independent legal profession. Following the path of Albert V Dicey, Friedrich Hayek, economist and philosopher furthered that the concepts of equality, generality, certainty and recourse to judicial review to be a part of rule of law. Generality in law means, that they should regulate the conduct of all, also, such laws should be drafted by a legislative body separated from the judiciary. Equality in law means that the law should treat everyone equally, however in case where differences are indispensable, it should be approved by the majority of both the entities included and excluded by it. Certainty in law implies that the repercussions of actions must be foreseeable by the people whom it governs. The act of interference by the government with the property of an individual should be the subject matter of judicial review of the courts as per Hayek.Â
Hans Kelson influenced the Civil Code ruled countries to imbibe within their legal systems the theory of rule of law. Kelson was an Austrian legal theorist who aided the framing of the Austrian Constitution of 1920. Kelson propounds that the Rule of Law or Rechsstaat calls for a system wherein all the rules framed should abide by the principles of a higher norm, that is, the constitution. The governmental actions should also be subjected to constitutional checks.Â
Valcke writes, “Following the end of the Second World War, the rule of law as a global ideal was given expression by the adoption of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in 1948 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed that “it is essential if man is not to have recourse as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the Rule of Law”. In the contemporary times, Lon Fuller in The Morality That Makes Law Possible (1964) and Joseph Raz in his work, The Rule of Law and its Virtue in The Authority of Law (1979) have advocated the formalistic view of rule of law.  Hence, it was in the mid-twentieth century that the concept of rule of law globalised and became one of the central themes in governance. The United Nations Secretary General Report, 2004 posits that, transitional justice strengthens the framework of rule of law.   Transitional Justice- Meaning and Attributes  The 2004 Secretary General’s Report to the Security Council on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies defines transitional justice as “the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation.” The UN Report states the three basic pillars on which the concept of transitional justice rests, to be, accountability, justice and reconciliation.  The Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law provides a more holistic definition of transitional justice. It regards transitional justice as a part of international law, which deals with the situations wherein there has been massive human rights violations and humanitarian abuses in a period of transition to peace and democracy. This definition looks upon the concept of transitional justice in the backdrop of change towards peace and democracy.  What became known as the "Nuremberg Trials", when the victorious allied forces of World War II extended criminal justice to Japanese and German soldiers and
their leaders for war crimes committed during the war, marked the genesis of transitional justice.Â
Transitional justice can take place in two kinds of situations. Firstly, after an armed conflict has taken place, or secondly, when the oppressive regime of a dictator is to be dealt. Transitional justice presupposes the set up to be democratic because it lays major thrust on establishing the foundations of on rule of law and end exemptions from punishment.Â
Robert Nozick, an Anglo-American analytical thinker, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) asserted that whatever a person holds at the time of transition, if it is just, should not be disturbed. John Rawls also expressed on the same lines as Robert Nozick, through his statement, Social significance of justice is ‘fairness’ which should be followed in transition in A Theory of Justice (1971). According to Immanuel Kant, justice is the recognition of past abuses. Transitional justice concerns the moral and legal considerations that pertain to situations where a new, normally more democratic, regime is being formed after mass atrocity or oppressive conditions stop to be prevalent.Â
The focus of transitional jus¬tice is on the processes that lead to a democratic or at least a less repressive regime. It aims at attaining long term just peace, which was less oppressive than before. Transitional justice is closely linked today with the Responsibility to Protect, it also involves recourse to military intervention to bring about a seizure to atrocities or to force a regime change toward a more democratic order. In the earlier times, specifically before the end of World War II, in the event of grave human rights abuses, the practice was to forgive, that is, to provide amnesty. This is evident from the fact that Christina Binder in Introduction to the Concept of Transitional Justice accounted with respect to what happened in ancient Athens around 400 BC. “The punishment for political acts committed against Athenian tyrants for forbidden after their defeat in order to foster oblivion.” Following this, the presence of amnesty clauses could be seen in peace treaties. One of which was the Treaty of Westphalia entered in 1648 . The ideology prevalent during these times was that, the effective way of ending any war in a civilization is to forget the actions of infringements of rights, howsoever grave they might be, to encourage negotiations and peacefully reconcile the estranged relations between the abusers and the sufferers. The peace school proponents advocated this idea of compromise. Contrariwise, the just school proponents put forth the idea that if grave abuses on humanity are allowed to be reconciled through negotiations, this will allow impunity to continue and a transition from conflict will only be an illusionary concept. The justice school of thought is influential in contemporary times. Interestingly, justice and peace are treated as co-ordinates to be used collectively to maximize the end, that is, achievement of rule of law. Christina Binder states that, justice is considered to be an essential precondition of peace. The justice school of thought advocates that, in order to prevent an occurrence of civil war justice should be done. In cases where the abuses are committed by an oppressive government which was entrusted with the responsibility of guarding the masses’ rights, the actions of the oppressors weaken the force and foundations of law in that society. More importantly, the trust and faith posited by the masses upon such rulers to be the protector of their rights is in deep shatters. The situation where the protectors become predators, the democracy is in a feeble state mostly battling economic crises, also given the situation, judicial and institutional democratic machinery generally lacks the competency to try past human rights abusers in large numbers. Christina Binder cites the example of Argentina. In order to enable a democratic transition it set out to make the members of military junta accountable for their past acts of abuses. However, because they enjoyed influential positions, Argentina faced troubles in bringing them to justice. In such situations, the past abusers can be made accountable without compromising with the smooth transition to democracy, by seeking international help.  To achieve its object of strengthening the framework of rule of law, transitional justice can be advanced by means of certain mechanisms. These mechanisms should be conceived as working in mutually inclusive and related manner and not as exclusive of each other. The Secretary General’s Report of 2004 titled The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, speaks about individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting and dismissals, or a combination thereof as the means through which transitional justice can be advocated. The medium may be judicial or non-judicial, the Report adds. Transitional justice aims at addressing the severe human rights abuses. Since the societies in which these abuses take place differ on various fronts, any one method for advancing the same might be fruitless hence a comprehensive approach is meaningful.  Reparations:Â
The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly in 2005. This proposition could be traced back to the words Hugo Grotius when he said, “there are certain duties which must be performed toward those from whom you have received an injury.” This statement is to be understood in the context of post war situation where the victorious are obligated to perform their duties towards the defeated, although the former are just and the latter are unjust. As the word suggests, reparations aim to repair, reconcile, to mend the effects of violations of legal commitments by the governments or groups of individuals towards the society. The violation may be caused due to failure to prevent or direct commission of certain acts. Reparations take form through monetary compensation, restoration of civil and political rights, acting against unfair criminal convictions, physical rehabilitation, and access to land, healthcare or education. Reparations can be executed through administrative programmes or can be judicially enforced. It may also take shape of group reparations, where mass atrocities is addressed or symbolic reparations in the form of memorials also prove effective in doing transitional justice. These measures are manifestation of the obligations of the State with respect to providing for a better future where individuals are made less dependable and more self-reliant and are enabled to overcome the enduring consequences of violations. Also, it expresses the commitment of the State to address the reasons which led to past violations and warrant that it shall not be repeated. Reparations aim at reinforcing the rule of law.Â
Truth Commissions:Â
Victims of human rights abuses cannot forget — and states have a duty to preserve the memory of such crimes. In the event of any armed conflict or repression, the survivors should be afforded an opportunity to know the reasons and the circumstances, or due to whom were they made a part of such devastating affairs. The international law recognise this ‘right to know’ of the victims. This right can be implemented through truth seeking practices or truth commissions. Truth commissions strike at the practices of manipulating history of commission of violence. Many a times to escape accountability and make the actions seem legitimate, the authorities attempt to rewrite histories. Truth seeking essentially aids its sister transitional justice measures such as prosecutions, reparations, institutional reforms. Truth-seeking may also address age-old societal problems like caste or gender based problems. A reliable account of the event can be procured through this practice which can then help in victim registry and building of criminal cases. It helps to uphold the rule of law in the sense that, the victims stand a chance to voice their miseries and their demands thereby laying down the foundations of a society which is built on trust and respect. In Ancient Greece, the end of war could be a witness of either retribution or amnesty, there was no intermediate way. The emergence of truth commissions have acted as a fulcrum to these two extreme post war concepts. The Truth Commissions are set up with the purpose of truth seeking and restoration of peace rather than retribution within the design of transitional justice. They are officially set up by the governments. Since their roles are dependent and guided by the mandates that they receive by the States, they are effective in delivering justice in case of societal conflicts. Their role in criminal prosecutions is less praiseworthy. Nonetheless, this concept of truth commissions regenerates a sense of mutual respect in the contesting parties, the State machinery and the survivors as the former has been successfully made accountable and answerable to the law and the latter could be afforded as opportunity to make known their grievances, thereby enabling transitional justice and upholding the rule of law in post conflict society.Â
 Institutional Reforms:Â
  “Public institutions—such as the police, military, and judiciary—are often instruments of repression and systemic violations of human rights. When transitions to democratic government occur, reform of such institutions is vital.” Institutional reforms can be brought through the process of vetting which means to eliminate corrupt public officials from their post or employment; lustration which refers specifically to the vetting processes and laws that were implemented in the former communist countries in Eastern and Central Europe after the end of the Cold War; and disarmament demobilization and reintegration. A transition or change in its truest sense can only be achieved when reform is brought in its causative agents. When past abuse were inflicted due to the state actors they ought to be replaced or held accountable for their actions also with a caveat of warrant against no-recurrence of such abhorrent practices, this can be achieved through bringing reforms in the institutional set up. Prosecutions: Sometimes a war is waged within the limits of law so that after it is over, the criminals can be brought to trial, this line of thought was propounded by Hugo Grotius approximately 300 years before the world could witness the first war crime tribunal sit at Nuremberg.   “Prosecutions provide the most direct form of accountability, and work best when there are credible courts – national, international, or hybrid – available to hold trials. Because the number of potential defendants implicated in past abuses is often quite large, and prosecuting them all would generally be beyond the financial, human and political capacity of the state, the number of perpetrators who can be prosecuted is typically small. There must be strong political will to sustain prosecutions, which is often lacking when perpetrators or their political partners are still sharing power. Prosecutions take significant time and money to conclude, and only address the crimes of individual defendants. But in many ways, successful prosecutions make the strongest statement against impunity and signal to victims that the new government is willing to make a clean break with an abusive past.” The International Criminal Court is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal having jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court established it laying down its jurisdiction and functions. The inability of national judicial system to do justice to the survivors of human rights abuses may require the International Criminal Court to step in and complement the existing national judicial systems. This Court can only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council and lacks international territorial jurisdiction.   Hybrid Courts:
 The investigation and prosecution of human rights offenses is conducted by the hybrid Courts. These have largely emerged as third generation courts. They follow the “first generation” Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals and the “second generation” International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The operative law is the national law, the judges and prosecutors are also nationals of the state in which the abuse took place. However the national law is interpreted to match with the international requirements. Foreign judges sit alongside domestic counterparts to try the cases prosecuted and defended by teams of local lawyers working with those from other countries. This hybrid model has developed in a range of settings, generally post-conflict situations where an international tribunal was not a politically viable option.  Transitional Justice in IndiaÂ
 The Partition of British India into two dominion states of India and Pakistan in 1947 was no less than a transition as it was marked by violent acts, abuses and suppression of voices of people. With the adoption of Indian Constitution in 1949, the Indian democracy though sought to do social, economic and political justice, there were certain periods of transition which proved to be testing times for the authority of rule of law in India. Two such stark incidents, the Godhra Riots of 2002 and the Anti-Sikh riots of 1984 have been illustrated in this paper. The Godhra Riots February 27, 2002  The Godhra riots are said to have been instigated due to the burning of a train after a discord between the Hindu and the Muslim communities in a small town of Godhra in Gujarat during which many Hindus were reported to be killed. Several Muslims were killed in a fit of rage. The State Government instead of stepping into the shoes of conciliator chose to allow revenge killings.  The Gujarat High court had scorned upon the utter disregard of the State machinery in containing the riots that followed the train burning incident and their incapability to maintain law and order. This was the grim part in the history of India which proclaims itself to be a potpourri of religions where each is to be respected as per the constitutional mandate. Hence the riots that followed the Godhra train incident demanded an institutional transformation in the interest of peace and stability. In this context, the possibility of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission performing a transformative role was examined and found to be an initiative worthy of serious consideration.  The Anti- Sikh Riots, 1984:Â
 The Anti-Sikh riots of were yet another episode of large scale communal violence in India. With the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 by her Sikh bodyguards, riots broke out in Delhi targeting the Sikh populace. The Anti-Sikh riots was a gamut of human rights violence projected on a religious community at the behest of political instructions. In 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in Lok Sabha, addressed the issues of reparations, restitution and conciliation with respect to the riots. However, the use of violence by the State had been legitimised on the ground of necessity to preserve territorial integrity. Nonetheless, “Conflict over Sikh autonomy has been, for the most part, settled, and Sikh separatism does not presently pose a major threat to either the security of Punjab or the territorial integrity of the Indian state. In this sense, the case of the anti-Sikh riots sits alongside other cases of civil conflicts resolved in favour of the state in the study of transitional justice.”  What demands serious consideration is that, in a divided democracy, the two extreme ends of larger public interest and interest of the minorities have to be balanced in a way where the rule of law is not compromised by any move of the State. Where this is ensured only then the society can enduringly travel on the path of peace as an integrated whole.  Conclusion
 The challenges faced by a democratic society which has revived from a conflict are many. The only remedy which can effectively deal with these challenges is governance in accordance with the rule of law. While this can be achieved with time, what requires more deliberation is retrieval of faith of the masses that the protectors will not turn predators.Â
The rule of law entails within itself the aspects of liberty, equality, justice and human dignity. When gross human rights violations are inflicted the rule of law is massively weaken. In this shattered set up, it is transitional justice with its mechanisms like prosecutions, reparations and reconciliations, truth commissions, vetting and lustration and alike aim at strengthening the weakened framework of rule of law.Â
Notably, after becoming a non-permanent member at United Nations Security Council in January, 2021 India conveyed its vision that, advancing democratic structures and rule of law in post-conflict situations is instrumental to address the inequalities faced by women and to ensure their full and meaningful participation for peaceful and inclusive development. A civilisation grows in real terms when there is inclusive growth. Since, the idea of justice being done by the ones who were the inflictors of pain is disturbing, involvement of international agencies would be an effective means of rendering justice is its truest sense. Racial justice has been at the core of transitional justice development. Mass atrocities faced by a particular religious sect should be resolved without any reservations as transitional justice also aims at sustainable development of the society.Â
___________________________________________________________

1. Â Anthony Valcke, The Rule of Law: Its Origins and Meanings (A Short Guide for
2. Practitioners) SSRN (2012) http://ssrn.com/abstract=2042336 (Last visited on January 8, 2021).
3.  “In order to act as a proper guide to behaviour, the law must be characterised by the existence of a system of rules that meets a certain number of characteristics…. The occasional and partial absence of any of these criteria was unavoidable because a balance has to be achieved between legal certainty and society’s ability to change laws, (…) the complete absence of one or more criteria would result in complete failure of the law.”
4.  “The rule of law consists in a number of principles and the most important as per Raz are:
5. all laws should be prospective, adequately publicised and contain clear, unambiguous
6. rules; secondly, all laws should be relatively stable and not be changed too often; (iii)
7. the making of the laws themselves should be guided by public, stable, clear, and general
8. rules; (iv) the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed to ensure that the courts
9. correctly apply the law; (v) the principles of natural justice must be observed, so that
10. court hearings are both fair and open and decisions taken without bias; (vi) the courts
11. should have the power of judicial review over both legislation and administrative action
12. to ensure their compliance with the law; (vii) the courts should be easily accessible and
13. minimise long delays and excessive costs; and finally, (viii) the discretion of the law
14. enforcement agencies should not be allowed to circumvent the law.”
15. Â Report of the Secretary-General, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, 2004, S/2004/616.
16. Â https://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/transitional_justice_sr_11_2013_03_c_binder.pdf
17.  The Peace of Westphalia is the collective name for two peace treaties signed in October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabruk and Munster. The ended the Thirty Years’ War and brought peace to the Holy Roman Empire, closing a calamitous period of European history the killed approximately eight million people.
18. Â
19. Â Supra note 1.Â
20. Â Hugo Grotius was Dutch humanist, diplomat, lawyer, theologian, jurist, poet and playwright. Two of his books have had a lasting impact in the field of international law: De jure belli ac pacis [On the Law of War and Peace] dedicated to Louis XIII of France and the Mare Liberum [The Free Seas].
21. Â Larry May, Jus Post Bellum, Grotius, and Meionexia, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS (2014).
22. Â Reparations, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR TRANSISTIONAL JUSTICE https://www.ictj.org/our-work/transitional-justice-issues/reparations (Last visited on January 8, 2021).Â
23. Â Supra note 1.Â
24. Â Kelli Muddell & Sibley Hawkins, Gender And Transitional Justice, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE (2018).Â
25. Â Supra note 8.Â
26. Â Institutional Reform, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE https://www.ictj.org/our-work/transitional-justice-issues/institutional-reform (Last visited on January 8, 2021).
27.  It involves disbanding armed actors—such as paramilitary groups—and providing justice-sensitive processes and means by which ex-combatants can rejoin civil society.
28. Â Supra note 8.Â
29. Â Transitional Justice: Institutional Handbook, UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE 2008 https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/ROL/Transitional_justice_final.pdf (Last visited on January 8, 2021).
30. Â The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of November 2019, 123 states are party to the statute. Among other things, the statute establishes the court's functions, jurisdiction and structure.
31. Â Alberto Costi, Hybrid Tribunals As A Viable Transitional Justice Mechanism To Combat Impunity In Post-Conflict Situations, 9 NEW ZEALAND UNIVERSITIES LAW REVIEW, 214, 214-239 (2019).
32. Â https://items.ssrc.org/from-our-archives/understanding-gujarat-violence/.
33. Â Ameya Kilara, Facing the Demons of the Past: Transitional Justice in Gujarat, 3 SOCIO-LEGAL REVIEW, 27, 1-27 (2007).
34.  Renee Jeffrey & Ian Hall, Post Conflict Justice in Divided Democracies: The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots in India, THE THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY (2020) DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2020.1728686. Â

Author Name: Divyashree Dacha, pursuing LL.M in Constitutional Law from Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad