Any transition from authoritarian rule to greater democracy necessarily involves efforts to establish and promote the rule of law. Societies in which massive human rights violations occur with impunity are by definition lawless societies. The lawlessness of the state itself serves to disempowered ordinary citizens, making them fearful to think or speak out and breeding cynicism and passivity.
As societies attempt to recover from these periods of lawlessness, one of the first opportunities to reestablish the primacy of law over individuals comes in the treatment of the former rulers, torturers, and jailers. If such people are treated summarily, extracting an eye for an eye, the transition to a society of laws is set back immeasurably. On the other hand, a blanket amnesty and silence from the new government perpetuate the existence of a separate class to whom the rule of law does not apply. Continued impunity equally undermines efforts to reestablish legality.
Thus, the need to define legal procedures and criteria for dealing with past abuses takes on a special importance (Hernan de J. Ruiz-Bravo, 1995). Similarly, the mechanisms devised to settle accounts with those responsible for such abuses must meet certain criteria for fairness and predictability that are traditionally the province of law.
Finally, much of the fight over impunity has been waged in terms of trials, domestic legislation, and international legal responsibilities.
At the same time, however, law is never made in a vacuum. It is always part of a larger political, moral, and social dynamic. As governmental and nongovernmental actors frame the legal and policy debate, they look to the experiences of other countries. To design a strategy for dealing with their own past, actors learn from what has been successful or unsuccessful elsewhere (Michael Jose Torra, 1998).
In formulating policies for dealing with past violations of.........
