Cyprus-Forum.com

Just though this might be interesting.

Erol,

I think prosecutions should be brought, but not by the truth and reconciliation committee, which should focus on re-educating people about the past in a more balanced way.

Prosecutions should be the job of the police and the courts.

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Erol,

I think prosecutions should be brought,

It seems to me that a T&RC comittee where the evidence collected can not be used to form the basis of a prosecution (like the one in SA as I understand it) has a much greater chance of getting the truth. So in a way the question becomes do we want

1) Maximum truth - without prosecutions
2) Possibly less that maximum truth - with prosecutions

Personally I would chose 1 over 2.

erolz wrote:

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Erol,

I think prosecutions should be brought,

It seems to me that a T&RC comittee where the evidence collected can not be used to form the basis of a prosecution (like the one in SA as I understand it) has a much greater chance of getting the truth. So in a way the question becomes do we want

1) Maximum truth - without prosecutions
2) Possibly less that maximum truth - with prosecutions

Personally I would chose 1 over 2.

So you propose a full pardon, for all inter-communal crimes committed from 1963 onwards?

I guess that is also an approach worth thinking about ...

Alexandros Lordos wrote:
So you propose a full pardon, for all inter-communal crimes committed from 1963 onwards?

I guess that is also an approach worth thinking about ...

Well I had not thought of it in terms of 'full pardon' but I guess I am thinking on those lines. As I understand it that was the model used in SA's T&RC efforts. Come forward and tell the truth of what happened - without fear of prosecution. Those that do not come forward remain under possible rsik of prosecution. For me, in terms of helping the reconcillation process then maximum truth is to be desired (it's not called a truth and justice commision).

Hmm, this is a tricky one. The problem in Cyprus is that we are a small place. I would find it very difficult to see how we can avoid vigilante style justice from occurring if the T&RC weeds out perpertrators of crimes and then pardons them. Undoubtably there would be certain elements that would want to take matters in their own hands and we don't really know where this could lead.

So, I don't really know how to answer the poll. I think that yes, the T&RC should be formed which will find the truth of what happened. I also think that perpertrators should be punished, but that shuold not be job of the T&RC - it would sound too much like a war crimes tribunal. We have to have a state of law where people respect the law so these crimes need to be prosecuted by the courts.

Got confused now. I want to vote for the first option but dont know who will judge the prosecutions. Anyway I support the formation of the committe, but on the second part I don't know.
So what should I vote?

MicAtCyp wrote:Got confused now. I want to vote for the first option but dont know who will judge the prosecutions. Anyway I support the formation of the committe, but on the second part I don't know.
So what should I vote?

Well as the poll originator my intent with the options was as follows.

1. A T&RC whereby those that testify to it can not have such testimony used in a prosecution against them (or anyone else) at a later date.

2. A T&RC where any testimony can be used as evidence against them - in say a normal cout of law - either in the existing RoC or any new entity post solution.

Really the difference was not in my mind about 'who' may prosecute but about the 'prinicpal' that the commision would be based on. Hope that is a bit clearer?

The principle is that everybody is innocent until proved otherwise. And to prove that somebody is guilty he has to be convicted by a court.

So I believe that it is not possible to have a committee that by itself will decide who is guilty and who is not without having those people send to the court.

I believe that trying to do such thing will create more problems and it will not work in the way we hope in reality. Maybe it is better to just see how justice will be applied from now on, and not scratch the old wounds. At the same time of course, nobody can stop individual citizens to bring to courts others that have harmed them in the past.

Piratis wrote:The principle is that everybody is innocent until proved otherwise. And to prove that somebody is guilty he has to be convicted by a court.

So I believe that it is not possible to have a committee that by itself will decide who is guilty and who is not without having those people send to the court.

Yeah, I agree with that, but, unless I got something wrong, the first option of the poll refers to the committee's right to prosecute, not convict.
That is, to decide whether any evidence is found to charge someone with a crime and send him or her to court for a trial. The committee itself deciding on innocence or guilt is out of the question, imo.
But I can't agree with letting bygones be bygones. That would be hypocritical, imho, as we refuse to let go of the past in the case of Turkey's invasion, but we would be willing to let it go when it's not us who's been screwed...? Selective memory...?
If that's what you mean, then I'll pass. Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you were trying to say.