Trauma and 

Transitional Justice 

in Divided Societies

Summary

• Truth telling, justice seeking, and reconciliation are inherently political processes 

heavily influenced by conflicting interests and access to resources. The process of 

seeking justice through legal procedures can be more important in building respect 

for the rule of law than in the meting out of summary justice.

• Countries emerging from long-term violent conflict are troubled societies that may 

develop destructive social and political patterns. In such cases, fundamental psychological adjustments in individual and group identity—aided by reconstruction 

processes—are essential to reconciliation.

• The tasks of promoting justice, psychological relief, and reconciliation are hugely 

challenging and costly, and they may take decades to achieve. Yet interventions with 

these goals in mind are usually constrained by time and inadequate resources. The 

end goal of achieving reconciliation is likely to require multiple interventions.

• There is often ambiguity about who the beneficiaries of any particular transitional 

justice intervention are meant to be. Moreover, interventions may impact individuals 

and broader social groups differently with respect to psychological rehabilitation and 

reconciliation. Therefore, the needs of individual victims must be balanced against 

the society’s larger short- and long-term goals.

• In transitional justice processes, “complex truths” may be hard to find in individual 

survivors’ stories. Historical narratives are a crucial part of getting to the truth, but 

the telling of history reflects the perspective of the teller and can be the basis for 

continuing conflict. Truth commissions and war crimes tribunals can provide an 

essential service by presenting concrete evidence about terrible crimes.

• Societies emerging from conflict are culturally diverse. When designing transitional 

justice mechanisms, it is essential to identify and draw upon local cultural traditions 

and strengths to the extent possible and to consult the population that the interventions are meant to help.

• “Third-party” outsiders can play essential roles by introducing new perspectives 

about the conflict, by providing needed expertise, and/or by mediating among 

www.usip.org

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

SPECIAL REPORT 135 APRIL 2005

ABOUT THE REPORT

In March 2004, the United States Institute of 

Peace (USIP), with assistance from the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 

hosted a three-day conference at Airlie House in 

Warrenton, Virginia, entitled “Trauma and Transitional 

Justice in Divided Societies.” Participants included 

approximately forty-five researchers and practitioners 

from around the world, about half of them current or 

former USIP grantees. 

The purpose of the conference was to explore, from 

different disciplinary perspectives, how divided 

societies emerging from violent conflict have sought 

justice and reconciliation through various transitional 

justice mechanisms and to assess what impact these 

mechanisms have had on trauma and reconciliation. 

The conference focused on societies that have 

(1) experienced political transitions following inter- or 

intrastate conflict, communal violence, or widespread 

human rights violations along ideological, ethnic, 

and/or historical lines; and (2) relied on different 

transitional justice mechanisms and public policy 

interventions. Conference organizers included Judy 

Barsalou, Neil Kritz, and Colette Rausch (USIP), 

Audrey Chapman and Victoria Baxter (AAAS), Vamik 

Volkan (University of Virginia), and Joseph Montville 

(George Mason and American Universities). 

This report was written by Judy Barsalou, director 

of the Institute’s Grant Program. It summarizes 

preliminary findings on a range of issues that 

conference participants agreed deserve 

further examination.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

SPECIAL REPORT

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect 

those of the United States Institute of Peace, which does 

not advocate specific policy positions.

CONTENTS

Defining the Issues 2

Recurrent Themes 3

 Conclusions and Recommendations 11

Judy Barsalou
2

parties to the conflict. But outside interventions can also inhibit social rebuilding 

and psychological healing if not handled properly or sensitively.

• Memorials can play a role in recovery from trauma and the shaping of historical 

memory. But the commercialization of memorial sites may have both positive and 

negative effects on society. Depending on the narratives they convey—and their 

timing—memorials can promote reconciliation or stimulate further conflict. 

• Defining success, even in a single geographical context, is a complicated process. It 

is extremely difficult to evaluate the overall effectiveness of transitional justice mechanisms given the differing perspectives of victims and perpetrators. Little effort has 

been made to assess the impact of transitional justice on trauma relief programs.

• There is sometimes the unstated presumption that successful transitional justice 

mechanisms contribute to the establishment of democracy in countries emerging 

from authoritarian government. Clearly, this political outcome does not always occur. 

But effective transitional justice mechanisms can help victims regain a sense of dignity and self-worth—feelings essential to citizenship in a democratic polity.

Defining the Issues

The international community now recognizes that accounting for what happened during 

the conflict, seeking justice for those who were wronged, and promoting peaceful reconciliation among combatants and their broader societies are among the most important 

needs of countries emerging from violent conflict. While much has been written about 

posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—the psychological distress that individuals may 

develop following exposure to an upsetting event outside the range of normal human 

experience—the role that trauma plays in these processes on the broader societal level 

is less well understood.

To explore these issues, the Institute convened a conference in March 2004 that 

focused on the following questions: 

• What are the implications of seeking and achieving justice and reconciliation in 

both legal and psychological terms? How can transitional justice mechanisms and 

processes be designed that are sensitive to the psychological needs of individuals 

and societies in order to dampen the desire for revenge and end cycles of violence?

• How does trauma express itself at the societal level, and what impact does it have on 

the formulation and/or operation of transitional justice mechanisms and processes? 

Under what circumstances do transitional justice mechanisms address, exacerbate, or 

relieve trauma experienced by individuals or broader social groups? 

• Has concern about the role and impact of societal trauma been explicit in the design 

and operation of transitional justice mechanisms? Do some transitional justice mechanisms aspire to address the needs of traumatized individuals or do they generally 

aim at addressing the psychological needs of larger groups or whole societies? When 

not designed with societal trauma in mind, have transitional justice mechanisms 

nonetheless had an impact—for good or for ill—on individual or societal trauma?

• How do transitional justice mechanisms that are not based on legal processes—such 

as public apologies, memorials, and museums—relate to societal trauma? What 

impact have these and other initiatives had on national reconciliation processes?

• What is the relationship between transitional justice mechanisms and processes that 

work at the national level or the international level, on the one hand, and at the 

community level, on the other?

• How do societies assess the impact of transitional justice mechanisms and their 

ability to promote or contribute to reconciliation at the individual or broader social 

level? 

While much has been written 

about posttraumatic stress 

disorder the role that trauma 

plays on the broader societal 

level is less well understood.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an 

independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international 

conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets 

its congressional mandate through an array of 

programs, including research grants, fellowships, 

professional training, education programs from 

high school through graduate school, conferences 

and workshops, library services, and publications. 

The Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by 

the President of the United States and confirmed 

by the Senate.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, 

Washington, D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chair), President, 

ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Betty F. 

Bumpers, Founder and former President, Peace Links, 

Washington, D.C. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Advocacy 

Director, Physicians for Human Rights, Washington, 

D.C. • Chester A. Crocker, James R. Schlesinger 

Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign Service, 

Georgetown University • Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, 

Williams and Connolly, Washington, D.C. • Charles 

Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, 

D.C. • Seymour Martin Lipset, Hazel Professor of Public 

Policy, George Mason University • Mora L. McLean,

President, Africa-America Institute, New York, N.Y.• 

Barbara W. Snelling, former State Senator and former 

Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt. 

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO

Arthur E. Dewey, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Population, Refugees, and Migration • Michael M. Dunn,

Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force; President, National 

Defense University • Peter W. Rodman, Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs 

• Richard H. Solomon, President, United States 

Institute of Peace (nonvoting)
3

Recurrent Themes

In the course of the conference, a number of central themes emerged in relation to these 

questions. The remainder of this report is devoted to an exploration of those themes.

Influences on Transitional Justice 

Truth telling, justice seeking, and reconciliation are inherently political processes, heavily 

influenced by the nature of the societies emerging from conflict, contending interests, 

and access to resources. The process of seeking justice through legal procedures can 

be more important in building respect for the rule of law than the meting out of 

summary justice. 

Transitional justice processes are profoundly influenced by a number of political and 

resource-based factors. They include: 

• How those in power define their interests. When well-known human rights abusers and 

war criminals continue to hold high office, they are unlikely to permit the development of processes that will hold them and others accountable. 

• Restoration of basic security. When security is absent, witnesses and judges may be 

intimidated, either requiring that transitional justice processes (such as war crimes 

tribunals) be held out of the country or preventing the operation of those processes 

in the first place. 

• The institutional, professional, financial, and cultural resources at the disposal of the 

affected country. Some conflict-affected countries have well-developed legal systems, 

as well as large legal and mental health professional communities, but others may be 

almost entirely bereft of such resources. Likewise, some countries have more financial 

resources than others to spend on transitional justice and trauma relief, or they may 

have well-developed cultural practices, such as ritual purification ceremonies, that 

help promote reconciliation and trauma relief. 

• The extent to which the international community is interested and involved. In such 

settings as East Timor, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the international community has committed substantial financial and professional resources to develop 

transitional justice institutions and programs, while other countries, such as the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, have received little attention and support. Even in 

countries where truth commissions and other transitional justice mechanisms are 

relatively well financed, their work tends to be of fairly short duration, and they are 

chronically underfunded, understaffed, and “over-mandated.”

One of the clearest cases of a transitional justice mechanism compromised by politics was 

the Chilean Truth Commission. Although its work was still of great value, its mandate was 

limited in three important respects: It could investigate only deaths and disappearances, 

not cases of torture or other human rights violations; all of its hearings were held in 

private; and it was forbidden to name perpetrators. 

The design of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) also was 

the product of a series of political compromises. Initially, the National Party demanded 

a blanket amnesty as a condition of a political transition, whereas the African National 

Congress wanted to prosecute those responsible for serious human rights abuses. The 

establishment of a truth commission with the mandate to extend amnesty for political 

crimes in exchange for full disclosure offered a middle ground. But the creation of the TRC 

by parliament was delayed at least a year by South African president Nelson Mandela, who 

understood that the top leadership of the army and police needed to be changed first so 

that the new government would be fully in control of those institutions. 

Transitional justice processes are 

profoundly influenced by a number of political and resourcebased factors.

One of the clearest cases of a 

transitional justice mechanism 

compromised by politics was the 

Chilean Truth Commission.
4

On another continent, the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in part reflected the fact that, when the Balkans wars ended, local war 

criminals were heroes among their ethnic groups and unlikely to be immediately tried 

by local courts. The international community recognized that if justice was to be done 

the court would have to be located outside of the region in a place where judges and 

witnesses would be secure against attacks and where a tribunal would be, and would be 

perceived to be, impartial.

It is one thing to recognize the inherently political nature of transitional justice 

processes and another thing to prevent political considerations from dominating. Discussants observed that often a society or new government in power may seek to firm up 

its political support through the summary execution of high-level party officials who 

committed terrible crimes. However, the society will be better served if those officials 

are given legal counsel and due process is observed in their trials. In short, the process

of seeking justice through legal and truth-telling procedures can be more important in 

building respect for the rule of law than the meting out of summary justice for specific 

perpetrators without proper respect for due process.

Psychological Elements of Transitional Justice

Countries emerging from long-term violent conflict are troubled societies that may develop 

destructive social and political patterns. In such cases, fundamental psychological adjustments in individual and group identity—aided by reconstruction processes—are essential 

to reconciliation.

Some individuals who participate in or are exposed to violence may suffer from psychological disturbances (such as flashbacks and sleep, learning, and physical disorders), 

as well as more fundamental identity and spiritual problems. Indeed, there are clinical 

definitions of individual trauma and healing, although the conceptualization and treatment of individual trauma remains an active subject of debate among scholars and 

practitioners. 

On the broader level, societies caught up in long-term violent conflict can also undergo 

serious changes as a result of long-term exposure to violence. New social patterns may 

emerge, such as widespread prostitution, rape, and domestic violence. Violence experienced by specific social and ethnic groups can reinforce a sense of group identity and 

victimization, and can encourage the emergence of markers of group identity, expressed 

through dress, language, and social practices. Specific traumatic events, so-called 

chosen traumas, may become transformed or glorified in the retelling to subsequent 

generations and may be used to incite revenge and justify efforts to restore the honor or 

dignity of the victimized group. Societies transformed in these ways by long-term conflict 

can become engaged in highly (self-)destructive political dynamics in which they become 

locked in unending conflict with their hated enemies. In such cases, reconciliation will 

not be achieved through the signing of a peace treaty alone but will also require adjustments at a more fundamental psychological level.

There is disagreement over whether medical approaches to diagnosing and treating 

posttraumatic stress disorder in individuals are relevant for transitional justice and reconstruction processes at the community and national levels. While we often use medical 

terms to describe “wounded” societies and their “recovery,” some believe that we should 

not psychopathologize the process of social reconstruction but instead should identify 

and strengthen the sources of resilience within societies. 

The processes of closure and healing—psychological and medical concepts that are 

used most often in reference to individuals rather than communities—are poorly understood when they are used to describe social dynamics in societies emerging from violent 

conflict. It is difficult to define these processes in practical or quantifiable terms and 

It is one thing to recognize 

the inherently political nature 

of transitional justice processes 

and another thing to prevent 

political considerations 

from dominating.

Specific traumatic events, 

so-called chosen traumas, may 

become transformed or glorified 

in the retelling to subsequent 

generations and may be used 

to incite revenge.
5

problematic to apply them to widely different cultures. The term “reconciliation” is often 

used to describe processes through which societies recover from trauma, mete out justice, 

and engage in social reconstruction, but defining exactly what reconciliation means and 

how it is achieved remains a challenge.

While it is clear that societies exposed to long-term violence undergo profound 

psychological changes that affect the behavior of those societies and particular groups 

within them, there is disagreement about how to address the resulting dysfunctions. What 

priority should be given to different strategies, ranging from medical interventions to constitutional reconstruction, judicial restructuring, economic revitalization, and educational 

system reorganization? Even when medical approaches seem appropriate, many societies 

emerging from conflict have limited medical communities and no means to provide psychological counseling to thousands, let alone millions, of citizens. 

Those who argue against “medicalizing” the focus of trauma relief suggest that reliance on terms such as “trauma” and “healing” divert attention away from the basic issue 

of how societies rebuild themselves after massive violence. From this perspective, the 

success or failure of those efforts depends primarily on establishing (or reestablishing) 

the rule of law and viable political institutions, security from violence, freedom of movement, access to unbiased information, economic and physical reconstruction, and the 

development of a quality educational system. All of these factors are likely to play a role 

in the restoration of individuals’ sense that they have control over their lives. Yet, arguably, while reconstruction along these lines is necessary to achieving stabilization and 

accountable government, fundamental psychological adjustments in individual and group 

identity—aided by reconstruction processes—are essential to reconciliation.

Time and Resource Constraints

The tasks of promoting justice, accountability, psychological relief, and reconciliation are 

hugely challenging and costly, and they may take decades or more to achieve. Yet interventions with these goals in mind are usually constrained by time deadlines and inadequate 

financial resources. Single-shot approaches or quick one-time fixes usually fall short of 

expected goals and often raise unrealistic expectations. The end goal of achieving reconciliation is likely to require multiple interventions.

Resource constraints and mandate limits are inevitable features of transitional justice 

mechanisms and trauma relief programs. Adding to the challenges imposed by resource 

limitations is the fact that the timing and sequencing of interventions is important. There 

is often a limited window of opportunity to establish particular mechanisms. For example, 

a lustration program to remove from responsible positions individuals associated with 

the previous regime is often—although not necessarily—best implemented early in the 

transitional justice process. Collection of evidence and witness statements for war crimes 

trials and/or a truth commission is generally best undertaken quickly, before loss or damage occurs and while memories are fresh.

On the other hand, early mandates, especially when imposed by outside actors, to set 

up a transitional justice mechanism may ignore political, societal, and budgetary realities. 

The urge to act quickly must be balanced against the need to spend time on a broad consultation process, on securing resources, and on developing sound mechanisms. Indeed, 

the implementation of a transitional justice mechanism may benefit from the passage of 

time as survivors—both victims and perpetrators—process their experiences and adjust 

to the new order.

Time and resource limitations may increase the temptation to “over-mandate” any particular transitional justice mechanism or intervention. Truth commissions are commonly 

expected to undertake a wide range of functions: to establish an authoritative record of 

the past; to gain public acknowledgement of past abuses and violence; to restore dignity 

Societies exposed to 

long-term violence undergo 

profound psychological changes 

that affect the behavior of 

those societies and particular 

groups within them.

Resource constraints and 

mandate limits are inevitable 

features of transitional justice 

mechanisms and trauma 

relief programs.
6

to victims and promote psychological healing; to forge the basis for a democratic political 

order; to end violence and prevent future human rights abuses; and to promote reconciliation. In particular, the latter goal has come into question as observers of truth commissions have argued that “revealing is not healing.” As temporary bodies with limited 

resources, truth commissions have limited capabilities. Under such circumstances, it is 

not surprising that these and other transitional justice mechanisms sometimes disappoint 

those who expect them to deliver more than they can realistically accomplish. 

No single intervention is likely to solve all the problems, and interventions that begin 

where others have left off may prove to be more effective. For example, war crimes tribunals may help establish the culpability of individual perpetrators but may fail to establish 

larger societal patterns of criminal behavior. Truth commissions may take on this task 

but may fail to meet the needs of victims for compensation. Monetary compensation 

programs, in turn, may not address the need for symbolic reparations, such as monuments 

and memorials. All of the above may neglect or, in some cases, promote individual or 

group psychological recovery. Collectively, these mechanisms may play a role in building 

toward reconciliation. 

Defining and Identifying the Beneficiaries

There is often ambiguity about who the beneficiaries of any particular transitional justice 

intervention are meant to be. Moreover, interventions may impact individuals and broader 

social groups differently with respect to psychological rehabilitation and reconciliation and 

sometimes may even cause harm. Therefore, in designing transitional justice mechanisms, 

the needs of individual victims must be balanced against the society’s larger short- and 

long-term goals.

People affected by transitional justice mechanisms may range from individual victims 

and perpetrators to the wider society and even future generations. Yet, the designers 

and implementers of transitional justice mechanisms rarely define explicitly who the 

mechanisms are meant to benefit. Clearly, truth commissions and war crimes tribunals 

are designed to help societies expose evidence of crimes committed against individuals 

and groups and, in the process, set the historical record straight about what happened 

during a given conflict. In so doing, the benefit to individual victims may be a primary 

consideration, but to what extent do such transitional justice mechanisms also benefit 

the larger society by, for example, reestablishing the rule of law or promoting respect for 

it? Does the import and value of such transitional justice mechanisms change from one 

community to another within the affected country or from one generation to the next? 

While transitional justice mechanisms can serve a number of limited purposes relating to exposing the truth and holding perpetrators accountable, their contribution to 

psychological recovery and reconciliation, either at the individual or societal level, is also 

not well established. Indeed, there is evidence that some interventions may re-traumatize 

individual victims who relive their terrible experiences while testifying in tribunals. Even 

when great care is taken to handle witnesses in a sensitive manner, participation in truth 

commissions and courts can impair survivors’ psychological well-being and reinforce divisions between victims and perpetrators. 

In designing transitional justice mechanisms, policymakers and practitioners engage 

in a complex moral calculus unguided by scientific principles yielding definitive proof of 

their ultimate benefits or harms. In this calculus, the needs of individual victims must 

be balanced against the society’s larger short- and long-term goals. Ideally, transitional 

justice mechanisms will have the effect of minimizing harm to individual survivors while 

maximizing the achievement of society’s goals.

People affected by transitional 

justice mechanisms may range 

from individual victims and perpetrators to the wider society 

and even future generations.

Transitional justice mechanisms 

sometimes disappoint 

those who expect them to 

deliver more than they can 

realistically accomplish.

The needs of individual 

victims must be balanced 

against the society’s larger 

short- and long-term goals.
7

The Elusiveness of Truth

In transitional justice processes, complex truths may be hard to find in individual 

survivors’ stories. Historical narratives are a crucial part of getting to the truth, but the 

telling of history reflects the perspective of the teller and can be the basis for continuing 

conflict. Truth commissions and war crimes tribunals can provide an essential service by 

presenting concrete evidence about terrible crimes.

Survivors find it hard to focus on anything but their own truth, but what is ultimately 

needed to promote reconciliation is the revealing of complex truths. Individual stories 

alone are insufficient in casting light on the complex personal and institutional relationships that lead to violence, or, as one conference participant put it, “the network of 

responsibility and shame that divides communities internally.” Establishing the identities of victims and perpetrators is complicated in contexts where everyone claims to be 

victimized. With respect to any given conflict, one has to ask the question, “Who is the 

victim and who is the perpetrator?” knowing that the answer to that question will differ 

depending on who answers it. From a societal point of view, everyone is a survivor of the 

conflict. While legal trials are designed to uncover and publicize the truth and to punish 

perpetrators, they may set back the process of reconciliation when all parties concerned 

view themselves as victims.

Often, the truth can be inconvenient. For example, an ethnic group struggling to 

recover from years of targeted discrimination and violence will be reluctant to lift the 

lid on evidence of violence that members of the same group committed against each 

other. Crimes committed by oppressed groups in battles against a greater evil, such as 

apartheid or genocide, may be suppressed in the narratives that emerge once the conflict 

ends. The effort to uncover the truth may also raise difficult issues of moral judgment: 

Is a crime committed by a targeted group the moral equivalent of a crime committed by 

an oppressor?

The telling and writing of history is a crucial part of the effort to get to the truth. But 

the development of historical narratives is fraught with difficulty because they reflect the 

perspectives of the persons telling them and can be the basis for continuing conflict.

Indeed, competing narratives of victimhood often vie with each other in countries 

emerging from violent conflict. “What is the way out?” asked one conference participant. 

He answered his question by suggesting that it is important to question the validity 

of prior, monolithic narratives that pit one group against another and to facilitate the 

emergence of alternative narratives through the collection of documents, oral histories, 

and historical artifacts. 

Truth commissions and war crimes tribunals can provide an essential service by presenting concrete evidence about terrible crimes. Without such evidence, social, ethnic, 

or political groups linked to the violence may be less inclined to accept responsibility 

for the roles their groups played. Encouraging the articulation of historical narratives by 

survivors and seeking a means of narrowing the differences among narratives are two 

ways of extending the work of truth commissions, which generally focus on the stories 

of individual victims and perpetrators and which operate for very limited periods of time. 

Understanding what one generation wants to convey to the next generation about what 

happened during the conflict, and the means by which that history is conveyed, is also 

very important. More work needs to be done analyzing the relationship between historical 

narratives and transitional justice mechanisms, and the role that the teaching of history 

in schools and community-based educational programs can play in inhibiting or promoting reconciliation. 

Survivors find it hard to focus 

on anything but their own 

“truth,” but what is ultimately 

needed to promote reconciliation is the revealing of 

“complex truths.”

Truth commissions and war 

crimes tribunals can provide 

an essential service by 

presenting concrete evidence 

about terrible crimes.
8

Incorporating Local Traditions

Societies emerging from conflict are culturally diverse. When designing transitional justice 

mechanisms, it is essential to identify and draw upon local cultural traditions and strengths 

to the extent possible and to consult the population that the interventions are meant to 

help.

The cultural complexity of postconflict societies increases the challenges of designing 

effective interventions. Societies have widely different ways of dealing with violence 

and individual and collective guilt, remembering the past, and exorcising psychological 

demons. Knowledge of local cultures and cultural sensitivity are essential especially for 

outsiders involved in the design and/or implementation of intervention strategies.

Some societies have indigenous traditions, such as customary law practices or traditional healing rituals, that may be more effective in promoting individual and social 

recovery and reconstruction than legal or medical solutions imported from the West. For 

example, while Western approaches to trauma rely primarily on “verbalized remembering,” 

some traditional societies have nonverbal methods for expressing and addressing trauma. 

More specifically, legal trials and truth commissions may “honor” victims in Western terms 

by providing them with a public forum for revealing their suffering, but eliciting victims’ 

testimony through highly structured processes may not be culturally sensitive or appropriate in some settings. 

Additionally, storytelling—an important component of various transitional justice 

mechanisms—can take different forms in different cultures. In South Africa, which 

established the first truth commission to sponsor public hearings, victims’ testimonies 

conveyed a narrative of violence and suffering that made it difficult to deny the abuses 

of the apartheid regime. In other societies recovering from conflict, such as Mozambique, 

storytelling does not focus on traumatic events but instead on resilience, healing, and 

successful efforts to outsmart the more powerful. Further, the needs of storytellers may 

change over time. As one participant noted, some rape victims in Bosnia, having told 

their stories, now want to forget and to no longer be identified only as victims. 

The Role of Outsiders

“Third-party” outsiders can play essential roles by introducing new or independent perspectives about the conflict, by providing needed expertise, and/or by mediating among parties 

to the conflict. But outside interventions can also inhibit social rebuilding and psychological healing if not handled properly or sensitively. 

Outsiders involved in designing transitional justice and trauma relief interventions may 

be aided by immersion in the cultural, political, and historical traditions of the societies 

in which they intervene. An interdisciplinary approach to the design of interventions—in 

which local and international legal and medical experts, political scientists, historians, 

educators, anthropologists, economists, development specialists, and spiritual leaders 

play a part—may also result in the design of more effective programs. 

When outsiders participate in transitional justice mechanisms and trauma alleviation 

processes, the very fact of their presence can affect outcomes. For example, an anthropologist documenting the gacaca process in a rural village in Rwanda may cause confrontations among survivors and perpetrators that they might otherwise have avoided. These 

encounters may, in some cases, encourage a catharsis that promotes reconciliation among 

neighbors or, in other cases, may confirm the neighbors’ continuing mutual enmity.

The complexity of societies emerging from conflict will challenge outsiders and locals 

alike engaged in helping countries deal with the past. Outside “interveners” in particular 

may have trouble identifying precisely who their local interlocutors are. What role did 

those people play in the conflict, and what political interests do they now serve? How 

The cultural complexity of 

postconflict societies increases 

the challenges of designing 

effective interventions.

Some traditional societies have 

nonverbal methods for expressing and addressing trauma. 

An interdisciplinary approach 

to the design of interventions 

may result in the design of more 

effective programs. 
9

will those considerations affect their advice about the design of interventions to promote 

legal accountability, justice, trauma relief, reconstruction, and reconciliation?

Memorials and Reconciliation

Memorials can play a role in recovery from trauma and the shaping of historical memory. 

But the commercialization of memorial sites may have both positive and negative effects 

on society. Depending on the narratives they convey—and their timing—memorials can 

promote reconciliation or stimulate further conflict. Generally speaking, it is not wise to 

rush into the building of memorials as soon as a conflict ends.

Given the inherently political nature of public memorials, there is often disagreement 

about the appropriate goals of memorials and about which groups—the victims, the 

wider society, the government in power, or future generations—will serve as arbiters and 

beneficiaries of memorials and legacy projects. It is unrealistic to try to build memorials 

that are free from political perspectives and undesirable to do so.

 Because memorials are inherently political in nature, it is inevitable that one narrative 

about a conflict is likely to become more dominant than others. A museum may advance 

the process of social healing if it gives voice to contending narratives, but it will lose its 

ability to contribute to peace building if it gives equal weight to all narratives, including 

those that promoted violent conflict. While the planning and implementation of memorial projects inevitably is tinged by politics, decisions about what is to be remembered, 

how that is to be expressed, and where the memorial is to be located are best made in 

consultation with all the communities affected by the violence. 

The commercialization of some memorial sites has become an issue, especially when 

they are used by governments to encourage tourism. Such an outcome can have both 

positive and negative effects. A site that attracts tourists, such as Robbin Island where 

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, can generate revenues that can be used to benefit 

victims and their families as well as help outsiders understand the conflict better. The 

commercialization of such sites, however, can demean their value to victims and their 

communities. Some governments place greater priority on constructing elaborate, expensive memorials than on helping the poor neighborhoods in which the memorials are 

placed recover from the negative economic effects of the conflict. When that happens, 

the presence of memorials can have a jarring effect on the local population.

Memorials commemorating specific individuals, such as victims of a particular bombing, can emphasize divisions and are more likely to have a psychological impact limited to 

the immediate families and communities of the victims. They can reflect the woundedness 

of a family or a community. Memorials that focus on the larger tragedy of the conflict 

and acknowledge the pain of all who suffered from the violence can constitute a form of 

reparation that builds bridges between groups or parties involved in the conflict. 

Timing is important. First, the passage of time influences how memorials affect those 

who are exposed to them. Memorials of events or persons who died a long time ago are 

less likely to have the same impact or meaning for those who were born after the people 

or events they commemorate. Second, it is probably not wise to rush into the building of 

memorials as soon as a conflict ends. The passage of time permits the allocation of scarce 

funds to more immediate humanitarian needs and development projects that may be the 

greatest priority of survivors. Third, the passage of time also allows survivors to reach 

more nuanced or balanced views of what happened during the conflict. 

Problems of Defining Success

Defining success, even in a single geographical context, and applying lessons learned from 

one context or time frame to another is a complicated process. It is extremely difficult to 

evaluate the overall effectiveness of transitional justice mechanisms given the differing 

The passage of time also allows 

survivors to reach more nuanced 

or balanced views of what 

happened during the conflict. 

It is unrealistic to try to build 

memorials that are free from 

political perspectives.
10

perspectives of victims and perpetrators. Little effort has been made to assess the impact 

of transitional justice on trauma relief programs.

If achieving justice and reconciliation is conceived as a dynamic process rather than a 

static condition that unfolds from different interventions over time, it may wax or wane 

depending on the circumstances, and may look very different depending on one’s individual perspective. The social and political stability that arises from real reconciliation 

encompasses both interpersonal and wider social relationships within and among communities. It requires accommodation among former antagonists, coming to terms with 

past injustices and violence, the development of new social and political relationships, 

and the readjustment of group identities. But these relationships and identities, by definition, are fluid, and their transformation may be more complete in some communities 

than in others.

A transitional justice process that may satisfy one victim may appear to be of little 

benefit to another. It may be enough for one victim to tell her story before a truth commission and get public recognition for her suffering, while another may find the exercise 

useless, or even harmful, unless the perpetrator is held to account and punished. In 

this connection, one conference participant said, “Survivors bring completely different 

expectations to the process [of storytelling]. Some of them want to be listened to by 

someone who cares and who takes note of their suffering. Some of them want to tell 

their story to their community. Some of them want to tell their story because, by telling 

it, they can emphasize the need for justice, the need for further investigation. It’s a form 

of presenting their demands or their needs. . . . Sometimes it’s a process that needs to 

happen in private.” The same goes for other transitional justice mechanisms, such as 

compensation programs. One victim may find that any financial compensation offered 

for loss has value because it represents acknowledgement of wrongdoing, while another 

may be disappointed by the amount offered or insulted by the notion that money can 

compensate for loss.

The perceived success or failure of transitional justice processes reflects the varying 

interests and perspectives of victims, perpetrators, and beneficiaries of the previous 

regime within the affected society. Perceptions of the desirability of pursuing truth, justice, and reconciliation, as well as the appropriate means of doing so, vary considerably 

among victims and perpetrators, and are shaped by time, group identity, location, and 

other factors.

The social science literature offers little guidance on the best methods to evaluate the 

impact of transitional justice mechanisms. Not surprisingly, empirical evidence about the 

impact of different types of interventions is also very limited, especially assessments that 

include baseline data reflecting the situation before the intervention.

In designing evaluation methods, one needs to identify the various audiences for 

which transitional justice mechanisms have been designed, distinguish between short-, 

medium-, and long-term impacts, and develop operational measures to discern changes 

in attitude and behavior before and after interventions are made. The comprehensive, 

long-term impact of transitional justice interventions ultimately may be too complex to 

measure precisely. But evaluative judgments can be made about the processes involved 

in implementing any given transitional justice mechanism and the changing relationships 

between individuals and groups resulting from the intervention.

The social science literature 

offers little guidance on 

the best methods to evaluate 

the impact of transitional 

justice mechanisms. 

 The social and political 

stability that arises from real 

reconciliation encompasses both 

interpersonal and wider social 

relationships within and 

among communities.
11

Conclusions and Recommendations

General recommendations that can be drawn from the conference include the following:

• Recognize the inherently political nature of transitional justice mechanisms and 

processes. Avoidance of politics may be impossible, but acknowledging the role of 

politics may help limit its influence.

• Do no harm. Policymakers and practitioners need to recognize both the risks and the 

opportunities inherent in transitional justice and trauma alleviation work and proceed 

with programs only after careful consideration and widespread consultation. Understanding the impact of any given program will depend on careful assessment before 

and after intervention. 

• Be explicit and realistic about intentions, goals, and target audiences. It is easy 

to raise unrealistic expectations about outcomes and to promise more than can be 

delivered.

• Understand that reconciliation and trauma recovery are long-term processes that 

involve a series of carefully designed interventions and are influenced by complex 

events and relationships difficult to gauge or control. At best, a single transitional 

justice mechanism can just begin these processes and may be successful only if carried out in tandem with other social reconstruction efforts. It is important for both 

governments and civil society actors to approach the problems of reconstruction and 

reconciliation from multiple angles and over an extended period of time. 

• Be respectful of cultural differences from one country to another and within any given 

country. For those offering assistance from outside, be aware that many outsiders 

operate from assumptions and employ perspectives based on Western culture. 

• Examine the ethical bases and implications of proposed interventions. What may be 

effective at the societal level may harm individuals, and what may be effective at the 

individual level may harm the broader society. Further, what may be painful in the 

short-term may prove beneficial in the long-term.

Finally, there is sometimes the unstated presumption that successful transitional justice 

mechanisms contribute to the establishment of democracy in countries emerging from 

authoritarian government. Clearly, this political outcome does not always occur or, if it 

does, it cannot necessarily be linked to the success of transitional justice mechanisms. 

But, as one conference participant suggested, an important connection between transitional justice, politics, and psychological trauma is that transitional justice mechanisms 

are intended to help victims regain a sense of dignity and self-worth—feelings essential 

to citizenship in a democratic polity.

Avoidance of politics may be 

impossible, but acknowledging 

the role of politics may help 

limit its influence.

Be explicit and realistic about 

intentions, goals, and target 

audiences.

Transitional justice mechanisms 

are intended to help victims 

regain a sense of dignity and 

self-worth—feelings essential to 

citizenship in a democratic polity.
Of Related Interest

A number of other publications from the United States Institute of Peace examine reconciliation and transitional justice in traumatized societies.

Recent Institute reports include:

• Building the Iraqi Special Tribunal: Lessons from Experiences in International Criminal 

Justice (Special Report, June 2004)

• Can Faith-Based NGOs Advance Interfaith Reconciliation?: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Special Report, March 2003)

• Training to Help Traumatized Populations (Special Report, December 2001)

• Postgenocidal Reconciliation: Building Peace in Rwanda and Burundi, by John Prendergast and David Smock (Special Report, September 1999)

To obtain an Institute report (available free of charge), write United States Institute of 

Peace, 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011; call (202) 429-3832; 

fax (202) 429-6063; or e-mail: usip_requests@usip.org.

Recent books from USIP Press include:

• Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific, edited by Yoichi Funabashi (2003)

• Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict, edited by 

Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall (2001)

• Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation, by John Paul Lederach (1997)

• Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes (Vols. I, 

II, and III), edited by Neil J. Kritz (1995)

For book sales and order information, call (800) 868-8064 (U.S. toll-free only) or (703) 

661-1590, or fax (703) 661-1501.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this report can be 

found at our website (www.usip.org), 

together with additional information 

on the subject.