Under international law, there exists an obligation for states to give ‘prompt reparation’ to victims of violations of international human rights proportional to the harm suffered. When the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Report was released in July 2004, it required the government of Sierra Leone to take full responsibility of the recommendations made especially those it considered very urgent and time-bound. However since the launching of the report, not much substantive work has been done to implement the recommendations of the Report. Even the establishment of the Victims’ Trust Fund has not yet been achieved- a fund which is to set the pace for the reparations programme to begin. Besides there exists a number of issues to be addressed before any long-lasting reparations programme could be achieved. Among these issues include the absence of a data-base system for war victims through which they could be easily identified and located. This article will examine some of the challenges the reparations programme might confront during the implementations process and suggests some possible approaches towards surmounting these challenges.
The issue of political will was not robustly demonstrated by the previous government towards the reparations programme. This was identified as a stumbling block to the speedy implementation of the reparations programme. An initial report produced by the Taskforce set up by the government to look into reparations issues in early 2007 noted in its recommendations to government that the Act establishing the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA), the lead government agency for reparations, should be reviewed. This recommendation was made on the grounds that the NaCSA Act expires in 2008 and for the Act to include reparation for victims of the conflict. At the moment the implementation of the reparation programme cannot be carried out if NaCSA’s Act is not renewed.
Another challenge to be met by the reparations programme is the identification of particular victims of the conflict such as victims of sexual violence and children 18 years or below during the war whose parents were killed during the conflict. The TRC Report recommended that this category of children be specially provided for during the reparations programme due to the fact that they are deemed to be amongst the most vulnerable groups in society. But identification of this group of children poses a very serious problem when one considers that children victims of the conflict including these children would now be far above eighteen years and may not be easily located without risk including others above eighteen who would simply want to take advantage of the process by claiming to have lost their parents during the war..
In addition, there is currently a lack of a comprehensive data-base system in the country for direct victims of the war. A data-base system will have to take into consideration the type of injury suffered by victims, their dependants, current economic conditions etc. Although there are plans by NaCSA to establish a database system for war victims as indicated by the visit of the team from the International Organisation for Migration in late 2007, yet this tedious process will also mean that reparations for the victims will not commence in due time until the database has been set up.
There is also the general problem of locating the victims nationwide and verifying them as victims of the war. The most obvious victims of the war are the amputees and those who lost other body parts such as fingers, toes or who suffered severe bodily injuries not easily noticeable. In addition, the question as to who are the real victims of the war arises when one considers that there may be many similar kinds of injuries sustained by other people which may not necessarily be as a consequence of the war. How can these be distinguished from the real war victims considering also that certain persons might want to take advantage of the process and gain certain benefits unduly? Also, how can victims of sexual violence claim reparations for their damage considering the social stigma attached to the crime of rape especially in the rural communities. How can the process be carried out to enable bolder women declare themselves victims of sexual abuse and at the same time do not stand the risk of being driven away from their marital homes by their husbands or being ostracized by their local communities. The traditional practice of forcing the rape victim to be married by the perpetrator should also be considered during the reparations programme.
Another important issue to be dealt with is the question of what must constitute a reparations package. Many people including war victims themselves often think or prefer financial compensations as the package for reparations. Although financial compensation cannot be ruled out, yet there is the risk of emphasizing it as the overall measure prepared by the programme. Many issues may constitute a reparations package including the provision of medical facilities for victims especially those still suffering from their injuries such as victims of sexual violence and those still in need of medical attention, provision of psycho-social services such as counseling, trauma healing etc.
There is also the problem of identifying reliable sources of information on victims from all parts of the country. This problem is most severe when one considers that available information on war victims is scarce. However, some organization may be consulted to provide some information on victims they deal with. For example, Amnesty International may be consulted on victims of sexual violence following a report the organization launched in November 2007 calling on all stakeholders to address the physical, social and psychological needs of victims of sexual violence. Other international organizations may be consulted for more technical and expertise knowledge. Organisations such as REDRESS can be very instrumental in providing training resource materials for the process. In addition, the International Centre for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) may be consulted for expert knowledge on reparations issues; and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for knowledge in establishing data-base systems.
Another problem is the question of how can Sierra Leone gets other countries mentioned in the report to participate in the reparations programme without jeopardizing the national diplomatic and bilateral relationships with those countries. The countries mentioned in the report include Libya and Burkina Faso. On the whole the reparations programme will have to grapple with a host of challenges which if not comprehensively dealt with will result negatively on victims’ human rights.
See UN, “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”