Three years after a historic peace agreement ended a decade-long armed conflict, specifically promising greater respect for human rights and accountability, impunity remains firmly entrenched in Nepal. No member of the security forces or the Maoists has been held to account in civilian courts for grave human rights abuses committed during the conflict; most cases that have been filed are stalled. Human rights violations committed since the end of the conflict also continue to go unpunished: cases against suspects are routinely withdrawn, with the victims offered token amounts of money. Ending impunity for past and continuing violations is essential if Nepal is to continue to move away from violence and more firmly establish the rule of law.

The wheels of justice turn slowly. This increases the costs of accessing justice in addition to hampering people’s ability to access justice from the courts. India is one of the countries whose inefficient justice systems are legendary. Most cases lag for years and in so doing delaying people justice. A significant number of all the cases filed in Indian courts remain unresolved for at least five years – the number has become increasingly alarming over the years. Some cases may take as much as 20 years to resolve. During this period, the people who required justice are deprived of it. In some instances, the accused persons died before the cases are resolved. Examples of cases that have taken an extremely long time to resolve include the Bhopal Disaster, Aarushi Murder Case, Pallavi Purkayastha Murder Case, Jayalalita DA Case, Hashimpura Massacre, Raja Radhakrishna Deb Land Case, Aadhaar Scheme, 1992 Babri Masjid Demolition, Uphaar Cinema Fire Case, and 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case. These cases highlight some of the reasons as to why the Indian judicial system is highly inefficient. They also highlight the untold suffering that the delay of justice causes certain people while propagating the culture of impunity in the Indian society where the powerful and well-connected can get away with anything at the expense of the weak and vulnerable. Generally, the factors lead to the delay of justice in the Indian judiciary include inadequate staff, lack of enough fast track courts, corruption, archaic laws, lack of technology, lack of public education, lack of adequate integration of technology in the judicial system, inadequate Lok Adalat courts, poor staff training and management, and the court appellate structure and management. These factors increase the duration of lawsuits and reduce the access of justice to common Indians. They also increase the cost of access to justice. This book addresses these issues in relation to the Indian judiciary system and proposes measures that may be taken to tackle these challenges.

What is the appropriate political response to mass atrocity? In Hijacked Justice, Jelena Subotic traces the design, implementation, and political outcomes of institutions established to deal with the legacies of violence in the aftermath of the Yugoslav wars. She finds that international efforts to establish accountability for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia have been used to pursue very different local political goals.Responding to international pressures, Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia have implemented various mechanisms of "transitional justice"—the systematic addressing of past crimes after conflicts end. Transitional justice in the three countries, however, was guided by ulterior political motives: to get rid of domestic political opponents, to obtain international financial aid, or to gain admission to the European Union. Subotic argues that when transitional justice becomes "hijacked" for such local political strategies, it fosters domestic backlash, deepens political instability, and even creates alternative, politicized versions of history. That war crimes trials (such as those in The Hague) and truth commissions (as in South Africa) are necessary and desirable has become a staple belief among those concerned with reconstructing societies after conflict. States are now expected to deal with their violent legacies in an institutional setting rather than through blanket amnesty or victor's justice. This new expectation, however, has produced paradoxical results. In order to avoid the pitfalls of hijacked justice, Subotic argues, the international community should focus on broader and deeper social transformation of postconflict societies, instead on emphasizing only arrests of war crimes suspects.

This book explores the challenges of transitional justice in West Africa, specifically how countries in the region have dealt with transitional justice problems in the last 30 years (1990–2020), and how they have managed the process. Using comparative, historical, and legal analyses it examines the politics of justice after violent conflicts in West Africa, the major transitional justice mechanisms established in the region, and how countries have used these institutions to address injustice and the pains of war in some West African countries. The book examines how transitional justice mechanisms have contributed to victims’ rights, reconciliation, and peace in transitional societies, and whether transitional justice mechanisms deployed in West Africa were suitable or ill-fitted, and the politics of deploying them. The book is addressed to a wide audience: policymakers, and graduate and post-graduate students of transitional justice, conflict resolution, peace studies, conflict transformation, international criminal law, law and similar subjects. This book will be of great value to academics and researchers, as well as lecturers in tertiary institutions offering relevant courses; legal practitioners; peace practitioners/NGOs; and those working in the field of transitional justice and human rights.