Transitional Justice in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Truth versus Justice by Naomi Roht-Arriaza Page B

victims testify in a safe and protective environment, their testimony can be a positive and rehabilitating experience. [76] The Court's Witnesses and Victims Section provides security arrangements as well as psychological and medical assistance to witnesses. [77] The judges issue orders aimed at protecting witnesses by concealing their identities from the public; [78] delaying the disclosure of their identities to the defense; [79] and minimizing their confrontation with the accused. [80] The Special Court Rules on victim participation are not nearly as extensive as those of the Rome Statute of the ICC, [81] but Rule 75(C) of the Special Court Rules does provide that “[a] Judge or a Chamber shall control the manner of questioning to avoid any harassment or intimidation.” Still, there have been instances where cross‐examinations caused victim‐witnesses to feel as though they were accused themselves, or where extensive legal arguments were advanced by the parties “over the heads” of victim‐witnesses, making them feel dispensable and at times interrupting their testimony in a disrespectful manner. Finally, it is important to ensure that protective measures are available to witnesses after they testify, even after the Court completes its work. Resource limitations render this difficult. The Special Courtintends to leave the responsibility of protecting the physical well‐being of witnesses after they testify to the national police, despite the fact that it is unclear whether the police force has the capacity to carry out this assignment. Arrangements are being made to ensure that certain NGOs will afford psychological support to those who have already testified. [82] With regard to the installment of witness relocation programs after testimony, especially for potential witnesses who are currently in foreign countries as a result of protective measures undertaken by the Court to secure their testimony, it is hoped that the state where they reside will fund their stay, or that they will be able to support themselves in those countries without financial assistance.
     
Special Court, TRC and transitional justice in context
     
    Especially where an amnesty regime exists, the operation of a truth commission or another truth‐seeking mechanism is crucial in order to promote acknowledgment of past violations. However, other mechanisms must also be established to ensure the restoration of justice. In Sierra Leone, the circumstances eventually brought about the nullification of the amnesty for certain leading perpetrators with respect to particular crimes, and the establishment of a distinctive prosecutorial process alongside the TRC and the amnesty regime that still applies to most ex‐combatants.
    The roles of the TRC and Special Court in part overlap, as they both promote accountability and the preservation of a historical record. The TRC's process complements the Court's prosecutions by establishing, albeit in a non‐prosecutorial manner, the accountability of many of the “small fry” perpetrators, while the Court plays a necessary punitive role with respect to the accountability of the “big fish.” The TRC, moreover, was in a better position than the Court to address the accountability of thechild‐soldiers involved in the war. [83] In addition, while the Special Court is mandated only to prosecute the atrocities which occurred after November 30, 1996, the TRC investigated and recorded atrocities which took place throughout the entire duration of the armed conflict, thereby facilitating a complete historical account of the war. On the other hand, the Court is better equipped to ascertain the truth in relation to certain events, given its greater capacity to obtain evidence, its larger financial resources, and the high standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” required by the Court to allow the inclusion of evidence in the historical account it establishes. [84] For example, given the reluctance of many