"[...] 1. It is fair to say that we have come a long way in recent years in developing the concepts of dealing with the past and transitional justice. We now have a good understanding of what is needed for effective transitional justice, as well as the linkages and the dynamics between judicial and non-judicial elements. I believe we have created a fairly well-integrated approach to transitional justice, at least in theory. At the same time we are still far from mainstreaming these concepts into the different frameworks of conflict resolution, peacebuilding, long-term development or human rights promotion. So in reality there is a gap between theory and practice, which may be even widening, and between the holistic approach in our mindsets, the implementation and strategies actually applied in the field.
2. As the head of the division at our Ministry, which runs conflict transformation programs at the same time as it deals with human rights policy, I was particularly interested in the dilemmas and conflicts of interest that we are facing in transitional justice. David Bloomfield summarized yesterday’s group discussion by saying that there is no contradiction between justice and peacebuilding, but there is a tension that is greater in the short term than in the long term. I must say I was also impressed by the International Criminal Court’s sensitivity to these issues. It may be at the end of the day when the real dilemmas are fewer than I had thought. This is basically what Juan Méndez has been saying. There are of course some real dilemmas, he argues, but there are also many false ones, and there are good approaches to reduce the real dilemmas, by offering amnesty to rebellion, by separating perpetrators from communities they claim to represent.
3. My third point is linked to the previous one: many of you have been alluding to the emerging norm or the growing recognition of a de iure prohibition of amnesties, including de facto amnesties covering gross violations of human rights, be they crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes. This is a very interesting development. We should examine how we can reinforce this tendency, solidify these emerging norms and (this has also been said) communicate to current and potential perpetrators that this is an issue that is not up for negotiation.
4. My fourth point is on the participation of victims and how transitional justice can improve their situation. Are we really listening to the victims? Do we as external actors know enough about what type of process could satisfy them and support their needs? We have heard that truth, prosecution, reparation and institutional reforms are not sufficient if there is no political will at the level of government and if the latter does not share the healing human feelings of compassion and remorse and accompanying these feelings with concrete actions that dignify victims and make them believe in the non-repetition of violations. The lesson to be learned is that victims should be fully associated with the design and implementation of transitional justice strategies.
5. Let us recognize that transitional justice should be just that: transitional. Yesterday we were reminded that we should be careful about what we term “transitional” in order to avoid giving alibis to states that are not keen on human rights protection. So it is absolutely crucial to create national rule of law systems that work effectively, and nationally owned human rights institutions and policies. As it has been pointed out, the international community is still struggling with the need to effectively extend and support sustainable institution/capacity building." (Conclusions, pages 183-184)