Repairing the harm of victims after violent conflict

Abstract

Almost 20 years after the end of the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the debates on how to deal with the past in Serbia are still ongoing. From the very start the international community has put major emphasis on the criminal prosecution and conviction of the persons mostly responsible for the war crimes in the region, both by establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia and encouraging national prosecutions. In the discussions about transitional justice in the region, little if any attention has been paid to the victimisation of the population in Serbia and repairing the harm incurred during and after the armed conflict. Moreover, the views and expectations of the local population have hardly been the object of any scientific studies. The purpose of this article is to report about the opinions of the population in Serbia in relation to reparation for victims, by drawing on the main findings of a quantitative survey conducted in the country in 2007. It highlights the importance of paying attention to the population's needs and, in particular, material and non-material forms of reparation.

“You cannot forgive and you cannot forget”: The Serbian refugee settlement experience in Australia

“…One way to do this is to allow former victims to tell their stories, which is an effective way of empowering those people who were disempowered. According to population based survey, 81% of the Serbian respondents found it important to communicate their experiences of war, and 51% of respondents said that it would be important if their suffering was acknowledged (Parmentier, Rauschenbach, & Weitekamp, ).…”

A War Criminal’s Remorse: the Case of Landžo and Plavšić

“…This kind of apology has been only analysed in the context of truth and reconciliation commissions not international criminal trials (see, for example, Gobodo-Madikizela 2002;Carranza et al, 2015). 4 For victim needs surveys see, Jones et al, 2012;Parmentier et al, 2014;Valiñas et al, 2009. committed crimes in pursuance of the official policies. While crimes orchestrated by Plavšić (and others) were much more widespread and had broader harmful consequences for victimized communities as such, Landžo's crimes were localized, very intimate and personal.…”