DRAWING THE BORDERLINES
TRUTH JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION MECHANISMS/AMNESTIES AND THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The use of alternative forms of justice has been considered very ideal in many countries as a result of fragile political systems.
This can be exemplified by the fact that there has been over 30 reported Truth Commissions in the world in the last 4 decades alone.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was also established after decades of negotiation in pursuit of fighting impunity.
The ICC, unlike alternative justice mechanisms seems to strongly appreciate justice in the narrow sense and does not fully embrace alternatives that look at truth telling, reconciliation and reparations.
A sharp contradiction arises when these alternative justice mechanisms grant amnesty in exchange for some of the components of alternative justice, such as truth.
Despite the fact that International Law strongly cautions against amnesties for international crimes, a lot can be said with respect to whether or not the Rome Statute of the ICC accommodates alternative justice mechanisms.
LL.M (University of the Western Cape), LL.B (University of Nairobi), Kenya School of Law (Dip.
The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and a Senior Research Expert at the Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission.