How can accountability be pursued?

(From Philippine Daily Inquirer)

(Editor's Note: Following are excerpts from a paper delivered by lawyer Cecilia Jimenez at the PATH founding assembly on Aug. 29.)

VARIOUS experiences on approaching armed groups in certain countries have emerged. International humanitarian and human rights groups have also examined these questions, at both policy and operational levels.

One pioneering research on armed group accountability dealt with these "approaches to armed groups." Nine countries, of which the Philippines was one, were studied in terms of the context and the human rights abuses of armed groups. The framework that the study suggests has to do with basic approaches for direct engagement with armed groups in pursuit for their accountability.

1. Persuasion. One could approach armed groups by trying to persuade them to collaborate or assist in the various endeavors that would contribute to knowing the truth about the events. Through persuasion, it might also be possible to convince an armed group to acknowledge the gravity of the events and to provide an official apology. The armed group could also assist in exhumation and documentation. Persuasion could be undertaken through dialogue, negotiation and consultation. The use of media, the engagement of constituencies and other tools could also be resorted to. What is important is that through persuasion, the armed group is willing to collaborate because it is in its own interests to do so.

2. Denunciation. This approach has been one of the most favored tools of human rights organizations. Public naming and shaming put the credibility of armed groups at stake. By publicly exposing the acts perpetrated, the policies involved and the impunity of the perpetrators and the armed group, the armed group is forced to deal with a campaign against it for those issues. Some of the tools used for this approach are the same tools used in human ...