Course: Genocide and Group Hostility
Module 3: Restorative Justice
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. Fighting impunity does not necessarily lead to reconciliation.
Restorative and Transformative justice
Restorative justice starts with the question “What was the harm done to the community? How can a person who created harm give back?” It aims to repair 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.
Transformative justice asks why the harm was committed, what are the root causes, and what the survivor or community needs for justice. It rests on the belief that interpersonal harm interacts with and reflects systemic and institutional mechanisms of oppression.
Beyond attempting to return the victim and community to the situation they were in prior to crimes being perpetrated against them, restorative justice is also concerned supporting the perpetrators’ acknowledgment of the crime, and the harm causes, and their efforts to atone for their conduct. It stands in contrast with criminal law’s often more retributive model, in which perpetrators are told they committed a crime and then are punished for their conduct.
Transformative justice takes a bolder approach, and instead of simply seeking to restore the victims and the community, it seeks to transform them for the better. It recognises that harms may be driven and are magnified by structural inequalities as well as bigotries and marginalisations. This is particularly visible in situations of genocide where the targeted groups suffer a process of othering and increasing dehumanisation, in the months and years before genocidal violence occurs. Transformative justice, therefore, seeks to change the larger social structure as well as the personal structure of those involved.
Accountability strategies
Accountability means that perpetrators may be held responsible for their actions. Enforcing accountability can help prevent future atrocities.
Legal Measures
The harms committed during mass atrocities are codified as core international crimes by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid courts and tribunals. 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))
- hybrid tribunals (for instance, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the court of Cambodia (ECCC), and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC))
- national courts (following the arrest of perpetrators who have committed crimes in another country. Some jurisdictions, including France and Belgium, also allow for trials in absentia)
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 those who bear the greatest responsibility 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. It is based on the recognition that the nature of international crimes is so serious that they constitute offenses against all humankind. 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
Legal accountability alone is not sufficient to bring justice after atrocity crimes. Without comprehensive restoration processes, victims 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 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is another international tribunal that has 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 Belgium’s colonisation of Rwanda.
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 and Syria are not signatories to the Rome Statute, crimes committed on their territory do not automatically fall under ICC jurisdiction. Consequently, the ICC cannot be directly involved unless the UN Security Council issues a referral or unless Iraq and/or Syria accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime(s) in question.
The ICC does, however, retain jurisdiction over crimes committed by citizens of State Parties, irrespective of the territory on which the crime is committed. This creates the possibility that ISIS foreign terrorist fighters from Rome Statute countries could be tried before it – assuming their countries are unwilling or unable to try the fighters before their national courts.
Trials of individuals affiliated with ISIS have been held in Iraq, Germany, and Sweden.
A 2021 court case in Germany became the first criminal trial to charge individuals for their role in the genocide ISIS committed against the Yazidis. In this trial, a former member of the terror group ISIS was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity, which he committed in 2015. (Amnesty; BBC)
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 November 2025, a Belgian court determined that a male ISIS fighter, tried in absentia, was guilty of genocide, as well as the crimes against humanity of rape and enslavement, for his role in ISIS’s campaign to destroy the Yazidi group (Brussels Times).
Iraq has not yet incorporated international crimes in its domestic law, with the consequence that trials of ISIS members in Iraq are taking place under anti-terrorism legislation.
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 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 centres 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 centres 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 centres have been established (HL-senteret, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Johannesburg Holocaust and Genocide Centre, etc.). Other memorial centres 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-competent restorative justice
Restorative and transformative justice processes may sometimes overlook the gendered dimensions of atrocity crimes. Gender-competent frameworks can help strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of justice processes.
The Rwandan genocide was characterized not only by organised killings but also by systematic sexual violence targeting women and children, many of whom were executed afterwards or died as a result of injuries sustained due to violent rapes and gang rapes (UN News). 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 constitutive act of genocide. The Akayesu judgement also defined the crime of rape in international criminal law.
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 only under the country’s anti-terrorism laws, as there are as yet no laws in Iraq which allow for the prosecution of core international crimes. Despite individual convictions, particularly in Europe, justice has not been served yet for Yazidis, including, in particular, those who survived ISIS captivity, the vast majority of whom are women and girls.
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 to achieve the perpetrators’ strategic aims 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. The treatment suffered by CBOW, including by their family and by post-atrocity communities, often differs based on the gender, age, and other identifiers of the child, including whether they are living with disabilities or not.
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). This type of restorative justice is, however, often challenging to achieve.
Women and girls forced to give birth under conditions of conflict or in situations of mass atrocity face significant physical and social consequences. For instance, Yazidi women and girls 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 tradition, and prevailing social expectations of parentage, these children are defined by 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. Documentation of the genocide by multiple actors indicates that sexual violence, forced impregnation, and the deliberate spread of HIV, directed towards Tutsi women and girls, were used to terrorize and destabilize the entirety of 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 and transformative justice have in addressing the experiences and accountability processes for both victims and perpetrators of genocide?
- What distinguishes gender-competent restorative and transformative 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
