The right to redress for victims of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide has become a soundly established right under international law. This includes the right to reparation which may take several different forms — economic, symbolic, or psychosocial rehabilitation.
Reparation after serious trauma is in itself a problematic issue. How can anything be regarded as a possible reparation after having experienced trauma involving serious losses, disappearances of close family, torture and long term detention? And in particular, when these events have been intentionally and deliberately inflicted by those in charge of state control, and with the objective of silencing opposition, what may be possible ways of providing healing, or reparation?
The question as to how such abuses are dealt with in the aftermath is highly relevant both within a psychological, sociological and legal context.
In their study recently published in International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, Sveaass and Sønneland (2015) (PDF, 83KB)opens in new window explore experiences with economic reparations after serious human rights abuses during the military dictatorship in Argentina, in the period 1975 to 1983.
The researchers discuss the possible meaning of reparation for those to whom they have been provided, as well as reparation in relation to other important aspects of transition such as justice and accountability. Survivors were interviewed about their thoughts after having been offered and received economic reparation both for disappeared, and usually lost, family members as well as for their own experiences of torture and detention.
The survivors had been offered reparation by the state for wrong-doing committed by the state, and most of the interviewed had, after serious deliberation, decided to accept the reparation. It was not easy then, and it was not easy after.
There were interesting differences related to when and under what circumstances such reparation had been offered and sought. Compared to reparation offered in a context where justice for the crimes was in place, reparation provided during periods of impunity (when there was no accountability for those responsible for the atrocities) was much more difficult, and for many impossible, to accept — both emotionally and socially. In addition, receiving reparation for losing a family member was more difficult than receiving reparation for torture directly aimed at the person him-or herself.
In other words, mechanisms of transition — state action in order to deal with injustices of the past — must be seen as a multifaceted effort. The importance of justice, that is bringing those accused for the crimes to legal prosecution and holding those responsible accountable, seems to be of major importance to victims and those affected by the human rights violations.
Reparations provided in this context may be more meaningful and possibly be regarded as an important step in a person's life, in a different way than when reparation was offered during impunity. Nevertheless, many of those who had received reparation before legal proceedings were established regarded the possibility to apply for reparation as a kind of admittance of serious wrongdoing, even in the absence of legal justice.
Citation:
Sveaass, N. & Sønneland, A. M. (2015). Dealing With the Past: Survivors' Perspectives on Economic Reparations in Argentina. International Perspectives in Psychology, Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(4), 223–228. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000041
Note: This article is in the Core of Psychology topic area. View more articles in the Core of Psychology topic area.