I. Quasi-judicial mechanisms

The decisions of quasi-judicial mechanisms are usually not legally binding. Nevertheless, these decisions do have authoritative value. In general, the decisions provide broad recommendations and leave it up to the state concerned to implement it. Some of the mechanisms that can be viewed as quasi-judicial are – non the international level – UN Treaty Bodies, including the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Committee against Torture (CAT), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). On the regional level, one can think of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR); and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR). On the national level, typically national human rights institutions and national trust funds for victims/administrative reparations programmes fall under this category.

For example, CEDAW is a body of 23 independent experts on women’s rights that monitor the implementation of  the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This Convention is the most important human rights treaty for women.

According to the OHCHR website:

“States that ratify the Convention are legally obliged to:

1. 1. Eliminate all forms of discrimination against women in all areas of life;
   2. Ensure women’s full development and advancement in order that they can exercise and enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms in the same way as men; and
   3. Allow the CEDAW Committee to scrutinize their efforts to implement the treaty by reporting to the body at regular intervals.

Countries that have become party to the treaty (States parties) must submit regular reports to the Committee on how the rights of the Convention are being implemented. During its public sessions, the Committee reviews each State party report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of concluding observations. (…) The Committee also holds days of general discussion and formulates general recommendations; these are suggestions and clarifications directed to States that concern articles or themes in the Conventions.”

For example, CEDAW’s general recommendation No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations provides recommendations to states concerning access to justice for women who have experienced conflict-related sexual- and gender-based violence, including access to legal courts, transitional justice mechanisms and reparation.

II. Non-judicial mechanisms

Truth (and Reconciliation) Commissions 

Some governments have tried to address CRSV through Truth (and Reconciliation) Commissions, which document human rights violations and provide recommendations to remedy the past and prevent future violations. Typically Truth Commissions are convened temporarily in order to allow victims, their relatives and perpetrators to give evidence of human rights abuses and thereby providing them with an official forum for their accounts. They are created, vested with authority, sponsored, and/or funded by the government of the country itself. Truth Commissions that addressed CRSV include Liberia, Tunisia, The Gambia, Nigeria and Guatemala.

For example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Liberia took place from 2006-2009. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act tasked the TRC “to promote national peace, security, unity and reconciliation” by investigating gross human rights violations and violations of humanitarian law, sexual violations, and economic crimes that occurred between January 1979 and October 2003 in particular. One of its findings was that “all factions committed gender based violence against women and recruited children to participate in acts of violence. (…)  The TRC recommended that the Government of Liberia assumes its full responsibility under international law to provide reparations for all those individuals and communities victimized by the years of instability and war, especially women and children. The commission recommended a reparation program of approximately US$500m over 30 years.”

The Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) conducts research on truth commissions and CRSV by researching the African and Latin American experiences in this regard. It is setting up a database on the connections between truth commissions, CRSV, and international law, which aims to support in establishing the impact of collective truth-seeking in addressing legacies of CRSV. Furthermore, the United States Institute of Peace’s Truth Commissions Digital Collection is a collection containing “profiles of truth commissions and substantive bodies of inquiry from nations worldwide – offering general background information on the composition of each body, links to the official legislative texts establishing such commissions, and each commission’s final reports and findings.”

Investigative bodies, such as Commissions of Inquiry

Since 2006, United Nations-mandated investigative bodies (Commissions of Inquiry, Commissions on Human Rights, Fact-Finding missions and other investigations) are increasingly being used to respond to situations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and promote accountability and counter impunity, in a specific country. Examples include investigative bodies dealing with atrocities in countries such as Nicaragua, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Ukraine, Syria, Myanmar, Venezuela, and Sri Lanka. Compared to Truth Commissions, the investigative bodies referred to above have generally a more limited scope: their investigations are for instance limited to specific events or specific geographic areas of a country.

For example, in 2022 the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine was established by the Human Rights Council according to resolution 49/1. The Commission of Inquiry’s mandate according to the resolution is:

• • To investigate all alleged violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, and related crimes in the context of the aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation, and to establish the facts, circumstances and root causes of any such violations and abuses;
  • To collect, consolidate and analyze evidence of such violations and abuses, including their gender dimension, and to systematically record and preserve all information, documentation and evidence, including interviews, witness testimony and forensic material, consistent with international law standards, in view of any future legal proceedings;
  • To document and verify relevant information and evidence, including through field engagement, and to cooperate with judicial and other entities, as appropriate;
  • To identify, where possible, those individuals and entities responsible for violations or abuses of human rights or violations of international humanitarian law, or other related crimes, in Ukraine, with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable;
  • To make recommendations, in particular on accountability measures, all with a view to ending impunity and ensuring accountability, including, as appropriate, individual criminal responsibility, and access to justice for victims.

In the beginning of the resolution – on “Situation of human rights in Ukraine stemming from the Russian aggression” – it reaffirms “the importance of the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in planning and decision-making with regard to mediation, confidence-building, conflict prevention and resolution, and of their involvement in all efforts to maintain and promote peace and security, and the need to prevent and redress human rights violations and abuses, such as all forms of violence against women and girls, especially sexual and gender-based violence.” With this in mind, it is important that it stresses that it is within its mandate “to collect, consolidate and analyze evidence of such violations and abuses, including their gender dimension.”

The United States Institute of Peace’s Truth Commissions Digital Collection is a good resource on Commissions on Inquiry from around the world.

Mock Tribunals

Mock tribunals (or “people’s tribunals) are tribunals that cannot deliver legally binding judgments, but are nevertheless a way to ensure some form of justice to survivors by looking at the facts and giving them a voice in the proceedings.

For example, in December 2000, the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery was convened in Tokyo, Japan. It provided a means to ensure some form of justice, especially since legal accountability had not taken place, for the women who had been forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II and who were aging quickly. The Tribunal was set up through the efforts of non-governmental organizations throughout Asia with the support of international and national lawyers, judges and prosecutors from around the world, as if it was a real court proceeding. Many of the women-survivors from all over Asia participated in the tribunal hearings.

One year later, in 2021, the “people’s tribunal” reconvened to release the full judgment at a special ceremony which was conducted in The Hague, the Netherlands. It found Emperor Hirohito and several Japanese military officials guilty of the sexual violence and the establishment of the system of so-called “comfort stations” and it furthermore held that the state of Japan needed to fulfil certain responsibilities to remedy the wrong done, including by compensating the victims.

A dedicated website has been set up with archives of this special tribunal: https://archives.wam-peace.org/wt/en/

III. Reparation

The right to an effective remedy when an individual’s rights have been violated is part of international customary law and enshrined in various international and regional human rights law and humanitarian law instruments, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 8) and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (Article 25). Reparation for victims of CARSV is part of a process consisting of obtaining truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. Well-known are the 2005 “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” of the UN General Assembly (Resolution A/RES/60/147 (21 March 2006)). On the basis of these “Basic Principles” victims have the right to: (a) equal and effective access to justice; and (b) adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered. The “Basic Principles” include five forms of reparation: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. In 2007, the “Nairobi Declaration on the Right of Women and Girls to a Remedy and Reparation” was adopted. This declaration specifically deals with the problem of delivering justice through reparation programmes for women victims of sexual violence in conflict situations and aims to improve it.

Victims of CRSV can seek reparation via different avenues at the international, regional and domestic level, such as through civil litigation (domestically); human rights litigation; criminal prosecution; administrative programmes for reparation and assistance implemented by the State; and the ICC Trust Fund for Victims.

In addition, by and large, reparation and assistance (including humanitarian and development aid) is provided by international and national NGOs operating in the countries concerned. See section “Consequences and Needs of Survivors of CRSV”.

Although reparation is one of the most direly needs of victims to rebuild their lives, it is also the one most difficult to obtain.

The Global Survivors Fund aims to address this gap. The Global Survivors Fund addresses not only the immediate needs of survivors, but also their right to reparation by implementing interim reparative measures projects when states are unwilling or unable to do so. In addition, they “actively advocate for reparation by states, which is ultimately their responsibility, and guides those states and their civil society in developing survivor-centred reparation programmes.” In this process, survivors of CRSV are part and parcell in the reparative process, from inception to implementation, and thus “agents of their own change”.