Justifying Justice in Cambodia

The field of transitional justice has a knack for self-prescribing rather lofty expectations.

Drinking the kool-aid at post-atrocity trials and truth commissions involves adopting the jargon of reconciliation, dealing with the past, overcoming trauma, establishing rule of law, and so on. It's as if the field is so insecure that it feels the need to justify itself to itself, when, at the most basic level, the rationale for prosecuting a Nazi is no different than for any murder suspect.

This week, a psychiatrist testified at the trial of a Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, that the prosecution of former Cambodian genocidaires can help victims "overcome their trauma through justice."

The bold claim seems reasonable on an individual level, but is otherwise ultimately unsubstantiated. Precious little research has been able to capture a discernible impact of transitional justice proceedings across broad segments of society. A new study, funded by the U.S. National Institute of Health, will hopefully shed light on the impact of the genocide trials on the large number of Cambodians suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

While the tendency of transitional justice institutions to proactively assert their worth is understandable, given that justice for genocide and other egregious human rights violations is never as straightforward as it should be, should such arguments be brought into the courtroom? And does the psychiatrist's claim ultimately do more harm than good, without extensive evidence to support his testimony?

The impact on survivors is an important issue for any transitional justice institution. But if the purpose of a trial is to determine an individual's guilt or innocence, then arguments about broader social impact should be made outside of the courtroom.

[Photo: Meo Soknen, 13, stood inside a small shrine full of human bones and skulls, all victims of the Khmer Rouge, in Kandal Province, Cambodia. (Heng Sinith/Associated Press)]