Course: Genocide and Group Hostility
Module 3: Restorative Justice
Restoration aims to ensure some form of justice to victims after genocide and mass violence. Combating impunity aims to prevent future atrocities and provide conditions for reconciliation.
Combating impunity in the aftermath of genocide calls for the concrete use of different accountability measures. Both legal and non-legal avenues can and should be pursued. However, efforts to hold the perpetrators of atrocities accountable are not necessarily successful due to lack of evidence or political will. Also fighting impunity does not necessarily lead to reconciliation.
Restorative justice
Restorative justice aims to repair the harm done to victims after genocide or other mass atrocities. It seeks to acknowledge suffering, promote accountability, and support the rebuilding of relations through both legal and non-legal means.
Accountability strategies
Accountability means that perpetrators may be held responsible for their actions, which ensures justice to the victims. Enforcing accountability can help prevent future atrocities.
Legal Measures
Mass atrocities are crimes defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC), requiring a strong legal response for prosecution. National legislation and courts bear the primary responsibility for preventing atrocities and prosecuting perpetrators. Below are examples of relevant measures at both the national and international levels.
Perpetrators who have committed mass atrocity crimes may be prosecuted by the following bodies:
- the ICC
- ad hoc tribunals (for instance, The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR))
- national courts (following the arrest of perpetrators who have committed crimes in another country)
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international tribunal established and governed by the Rome Statute. It is responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals accused of committing the gravest international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Its primary goal is to prosecute and hold perpetrators accountable, with a secondary aim to help prevent these atrocities from reoccurring.
The ICC operates as a court of last resort. The court seeks to complement, not replace, national courts, stepping in when local jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to act.
Some states allow the prosecution of serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This applies regardless of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. The principle is intended to prevent impunity when domestic courts or international tribunals are unable or unwilling to act. In recent years, it has been applied in national courts in countries such as Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Belgium in judgments against individual perpetrators during the Rwanda and the Yazidi genocides.
Key cases
Case presentation: The Srebrenica Genocide
The Srebrenica case stands as a significant example of how legal mechanisms have been employed in the aftermath of genocide to pursue justice and accountability. The UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993 to prosecute crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars of Succession, including the Srebrenica genocide.
The ICTY was an ad-hoc tribunal with a specific mandate to prosecute crimes committed during the Yugoslav Wars of Succession, including the Srebrenica genocide of 1994. It was established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 827.
Its mandate continues through domestic courts and the Residual Mechanism. To date, over 50 people have been convicted of genocide or related atrocities in connection with the Srebrenica genocide. These legal proceedings have had an impact on recognizing victims’ suffering, holding perpetrators accountable, and advancing restorative justice. Read More
However, legal accountability alone is not sufficient to bring justice after atrocity crimes. Without comprehensive restoration processes, victims of atrocities may find it difficult to heal and rebuild their lives while perpetrators may be unwilling to acknowledge their guilt.
Case presentation: Accountability strategies in Rwanda
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) issued the first-ever conviction for the crime of genocide in 1994. The ICTR and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are the only two international tribunals that have prosecuted atrocity crimes since the end of the Cold War.
Like most countries on the African continent, Rwanda is ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse. As discussed in Module 1 – Genocide, ethnic conflicts, in this case between the Hutu majority and Tutsi minority, have a long history, dating back to the time before Rwanda’s independence.
After the genocide in 1994, efforts have been made towards reconciliation and reconstruction with an emphasis on a stronger and more unified Rwandan identity. According to critics, efforts towards a unified identity may sometimes be perceived as repressive if they end up suppressing the human right to express one’s ethnic identity.
Dohuzanye is a village where Hutu and Tutsi widows live together after the Rwandan genocide. They first met in the local Gacaca courts, where they sought justice for the killings of their children simply because their fathers were Tutsis. This film introduces us to some of these widows.
Gacaca courts are grassroots courts based on traditional forms of Rwandan justice. The Gacaca courts dealt with individuals who expressed remorse for their participation in the genocide.
Through these courts, local communities would come together to address the specific crimes of individuals. Survivors and victims who attended the hearings could confront the defendants. The community would then decide on an appropriate punishment for those who admitted to committing atrocity crimes and were willing to take responsibility.
Throughout their existence, the Gacaca courts processed nearly two million genocide-related cases.
The ICTR was an ad-hoc tribunal with a specific mandate limited to Rwanda. It was created by United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 in 1994. The ICTY and ICTR are distinct from the ICC, which was permanently established under the Rome Statute.
Rwanda uses both national courts and grassroots Gacaca courts to prosecute individuals implicated in the 1994 genocide.
Case presentation: The Yazidi Genocide
No international tribunal has been established for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the Yazidi genocide. Since Iraq is not a signatory state to the Rome Statute, the ICC cannot be directly involved unless the UN Security Council issues a referral. Nevertheless, individual trials have been held in Iraq, Germany, and Sweden.
Similarly, in 2025, a woman in Sweden was convicted of committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and gross war crimes against women and children of the Yazidi community in 2015. (Stockholm Supreme Court)
In late 2025, a male ISIS fighter in Belgium was convicted of committing genocide against the Yazidi minority in Iraq and Syria during the atrocities in 2014. (The Brussels Times)
Women as actors for restoration and justice - Ashwaq's story
Ashwaq
Non-legal measures
Documentation, education, dialogue, and other non-legal measures for restoration after genocide and other mass atrocities may serve as a means to prevent future atrocities. The idea is that new insight, mutual understanding, and a sense of justice may enhance reconciliation and help combat group hostility. Experience shows this is hard to achieve in practice. There are, however, examples that indicate that achievements can be made if international organisations, states, and civil society remain committed to such efforts.
Documentation and memorialization of genocide
Documenting atrocity crimes is an essential step towards accountability processes and restorative justice. Documentation centers and initiatives, along with truth commissions and investigative bodies, aim to collect incriminating evidence and identify both victims and perpetrators.
Memorialization is also essential to achieve justice after genocide. Memorial sites and centers are used for remembrance and grief, but can also be used to disseminate knowledge about genocides. This is often done through witness testimonies and film.
Because of this, several Holocaust centers have been established (HL-senteret, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Centre, etc.). Other memorial centers have also been established for the dissemination of knowledge about more recent genocides:
- Kigali Genocide Memorial (Rwanda)
- Srebrenica Memorial Center (Bosnia-Herzegovina)
- Yazidi Genocide Memorial (Iraq)
Gender-sensitive restorative justice
Restorative justice processes may sometimes overlook the gendered dimensions of atrocity crimes. Gender-sensitive frameworks can help strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of justice processes.
The Rwandan genocide was characterized not only by frenzied killings but also by systematic sexual violence targeting women and children. According to UN Special Rapporteur René Degni-Ségui, “Rape was the rule, and its absence the exception”.
In 1998, during the sentencing of Jean Paul Akayesu, the ICTR set a legal precedent by recognizing rape as a weapon of genocide. Subsequently, mass rape was defined in international criminal law. Nevertheless, establishing rape as an explicit tool of genocide in court presents significant legal challenges.
In 2021, Iraq adopted the Yazidi Female Survivors Law, recognizing ISIS crimes against Yazidi women as genocide and providing for reparations, psychosocial support, and education opportunities. Implementation has been slow, and many survivors have yet to receive the promised compensation. Iraqi courts have also prosecuted ISIS members, but rarely for sexual violence and never for genocide. Despite individual convictions, justice has not been served yet for Yazidi women.
Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Pramila Patten discusses the consequences of the campaign of mass rape carried out as a part of the genocide.
Children Born of War
Rape and sexual violence are frequently used as weapons in armed conflicts and genocides. This has given rise to the issue of Children Born of War (CBOW), defined as children whose parents are on opposite sides of a conflict and are often conceived through conflict-related sexual violence. These children may face marginalization, mistreatment, rejection, or even death due to their association with their perpetrator’s actions and identity.
Ajna Jusic is one of the 4,000 children conceived during the mass rapes perpetrated during the Yugoslav Wars of Succession in 1991–95. In 2022, Bosnia-Herzegovina legally recognized CBOW as civilian victims of war.
Restorative justice for women who have experienced sexual violence, as well as their children, requires a multifaceted approach. Along with mental, physical, social, and legal support, identifying perpetrators may help some victims seek accountability for the violence they endured, and in rare cases even confront their assailants (Ashwaq). Unfortunately, this type of restorative justice is rarely achieved and often unattainable.
Women and girls forced to give birth under conditions of conflict face significant physical and social consequences. For instance, Yazidi women raped by ISIS fighters have given birth to children whose father’s religious identity is different from the Yazidi faith. According to Iraqi law, Yazidi traditions, and prevailing social expectations of parentage, these children would follow the father’s religion. The undesired pregnancy and children born of such rape can often damage and split communities.
During the Rwandan genocide, widespread rape and sexual violence occurred alongside other atrocities. Although establishing rape as an explicit tool of genocide in court has its own legal challenges, evidence indicates that sexual violence, forced impregnation, and the deliberate spread of HIV were used to terrorize and destabilize the Tutsi population.
The Russo-Ukrainian conflict, due to the hundreds of sexual violence cases reported, could also bring with it the birth of CBOW. To know more about how to prepare for and address this possibility, read this PRIO policy brief.
Questions for reflection and discussion
- What role can restorative justice have in addressing the experiences and accountability processes for both victims and perpetrators of genocide?
- What distinguishes gender-sensitive restorative justice from other forms of justice when it comes to mass violence and genocide?
- What are the legal advantages and disadvantages of focusing on intent in classifying criminal acts as genocide?
- Case study discussion: Compare our key cases of genocide and identify both the benefits and limitations of legal and non-legal aspects of restorative justice.
For Educators
- When discussing the role of international criminal law in addressing impunity after genocide with students, use specific examples to emphasize the challenges of addressing impunity outside of the courtroom.
- Those challenges are typically due to a lack of political will and resistance from states, which limit the effectiveness of international bodies and national mechanisms for restoration.
- The Johannesburg Holocaust & Genocide Centre has developed relevant resources for educators and learners, available here.
- For more information about using films for education, please see our For Educators page.
Additional Resources
Legal measures
- Nwoye, Leo C. 2016. “Transitional Justice and the ICC: Lessons from Rwanda.” In The International Criminal Court and Africa: One Decade On, edited by Evelyn A Ankumah, 549–92. Cambridge: Intersentia. (link)
- Kottou, Eva. 2022. “International Criminal Court Addressing the 1994 Rwandan Genocide in 2022: Is It Too Late for Justice?” The Yale Review of International Studies, November. (link)
More on the case studies
