Crimes against humanity involve not only a willing offender but often collaboration by government authorities as well. Besides threatening victims’ faith in others, their faith in government and social institutions is also threatened. In this article we examine victims’ perceptions of justice in order to obtain a better understanding of how to restore justice for victims following crimes against humanity. Based on qualitative interviews with victims of crimes against humanity, we explore the meaning and function of justice. The results support the Fairness Heuristic Theory of Justice, which considers justice judgements to be a determinant of trust in authorities. The article closes with recommendations for transitional governments.
BloomfieldDBarnesTHuyseL (2003) Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook. Stockholm: IDEA.
2.
DanieliY (2009) Massive trauma and the healing role of reparative justice. In: FerstmanCGoetzMStephensA (eds) Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 41−78.
3.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
GibsonJL (2002) Truth, justice and reconciliation: Judging the fairness of amnesty in South Africa. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 540−556.
5.
Human Rights Watch (2011) Haiti’s Rendezvous with History: The Case of Jean-Claude Duvalier. New York: Human Rights Watch.
HuoYJSmithHJTylerTRLindEA (1996) Superordinate identification, subgroup identification and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem, is assimilation the answer?Psychological Science7: 40−45.
8.
Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (2013) Jean-Claude Duvalier attempting to elude justice through diversion and a frivolous appeal. Posted 21 February 2013. Available at: http://ijdh.org/archives/31012 (accessed 5 March 2013).
9.
JostJTBanajiM (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology33(1): 1−27.
10.
LambourneW (2009) Transitional justice and peacebuilding after mass violence. The International Journal of Transitional Justice3(1): 28−48.
11.
LemoineP (2006) Fort-Dimanche, Fort-la-Mort. New York: Freeport.
12.
ParmentierSWeitekampE (2007) Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance, Volume 9: Crime and Human Rights. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
13.
RaymondE (2010) Justice pour les crimes contre l’humanité: Point de vue et attentes des victimes. Mémoire de maîtrise. École de criminologie, Université de Montréal.
14.
RoachK (1999) Due Process and Victims’ Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
15.
StarzyckK (2012) Framing reparation claims for crimes against humanity. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Reparation for Crimes Against Humanity, 25−27 October, International Centre for Comparative Criminology, Université de Montréal.
16.
StoverE (2005) The Witnessess. Philiadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Publishers.
17.
StreicherBJonasEMaierGWFreyDSpiessbergerA (2012) Procedural fairness and creativity: Does voice maintain people’s creative vein over time?Creativity Research Journal24(4): 358−363.
18.
TagadoéN (2011) Les victimisations et les conséquences de la traite et l’esclavage négriers transatlantique selon les Afro-descendants. Mémoire de maîtrise. École de criminologie, Université de Montréal.
19.
TylerT (1989) The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57(5) 830−838.
20.
TylerTLindEA (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. In ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25. San Diego: Academic Press, 115−191.
21.
Van den BosKLindEA (2002a) Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgements. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology34: 1−59.
22.
Van den BosKLindEA (2002b) When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organization Behavior24: 181−223.
23.
Van den BosKLindEAWilkeH (2001) The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In: CropanzanoR (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, Vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 49–66.
24.
Van der MerweH (2008) What survivors say about justice: An analysis of the TRC Victim Hearings. In: ChapmanAvan der MerweH (eds) Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Did the TRC Deliver?Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Publishers, 23−44.
25.
WemmersJ (2010) The meaning of fairness for victims. In: KnepperPShohamS (eds) International Handbook of Victimology. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, 27−43.
