Self-Reported Psychosocial Consequences of Testifying in a War Crimes Tribunal in Sierra Leone

Abstract

Interviews were conducted with 147 witnesses (109 men, 38 women) after they had testified in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a tribunal jointly established by the United Nations and the Sierra Leonean government to prosecute individuals accused of bearing the greatest responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the country’s civil war. Participants were asked to describe changes, for better or worse, they had experienced since testifying. Responses were examined using content analysis. More than 4 of 5 witnesses described the consequences of testifying as primarily positive (vs. negative or neutral). Further, more than 3 times as many positive as negative consequences were mentioned. The benefit mentioned most often was a feeling of having unburdened oneself. About 1 in 5 witnesses reported that testifying had resulted in long-term reductions in sadness, anxiety, anger, and/or intrusive posttraumatic stress symptoms. A small minority of witnesses portrayed the psychosocial consequences of testifying as primarily negative. Also, approximately 1 in 5 respondents mentioned concerns about safety, and 1 in 10 reported deterioration in a social relationship. Victims mentioned different types of consequences, and a greater number of positive consequences, than nonvictim witnesses. In contrast to the view that testifying about atrocities is inherently retraumatizing, the vast majority of respondents did not report retraumatization from having testified. Further, most respondents reported that testifying had yielded important psychosocial rewards.

The Security Consequences of Bearing Witness

“…Lastly, we suggest that the results of our models can help inform witness protection plans at both international and national tribunals. Given the necessity of eyewitness testimony in the international criminal tribunals, and the corresponding efforts made by conflict actors to hinder such testimony, providing proper security to those most likely to be threatened is critical (Stepakoff, Reynolds, and Charters 2015). As we have seen with the disruptions to the Kenya trial at the ICC, witness intimidation, threats, and killings can effectively derail a prosecution.…”

“…Indeed, such violence is not unknown as there have been instances of threats and the suspicious deaths of witnesses at the International Criminal Court (ICC), 1 the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Like others, we seek to understand this type of insecurity from the perspective of the individuals most directly affected by the war rather than the state itself (Brounéus 2010; Stepakoff, Reynolds, and Charters 2015; Stover 2005). More specifically, we develop a theory regarding the security consequences of bearing witness before an international criminal tribunal.…”

The Burden of Bearing Witness: The Impact of Testifying at War Crimes Tribunals

“…One piece of the transitional justice puzzle centers on whether testifying produces healing and closure for witnesses or whether it does harm to those who recount wartime events (Bandes 2009;Henry 2009Henry , 2010Herman 2003;Stover 2005). The witness experience is thorny, whether the venue is a truth and reconciliation commission (Mendeloff 2009;Byrne 2004;Hamber 2009), a community justice court (Brounéus 2010), or a war crimes tribunal Vahidy 2009b, 2011;Stepakoff et al 2014Stepakoff et al , 2015aStepakoff et al , 2015bCody et al 2014). Trauma psychologists have found potential for healing through truth-telling and the power of a "testimonial community" because the retelling of trauma may facilitate cathartic empowerment (Herman 1992;Laub 1992).…”

“…That means that at both the micro-and macrolevels, if witness testimony or experience is impaired, then witness "voices" are not part of the ultimate judgment and thus justice can be undermined (Dembour and Haslam 2004). Even if testifying itself is truth-telling or cathartic, there may be adverse consequences because of post-testimonial human and socioeconomic security challenges (Stepakoff et al 2015a;Cody et al 2014;Tyler 1988, 128). What might account for why some overcome traumatic events while others are not?…”

“…The first proposition above-that we should distinguish between whether the witness is evaluating their personal experience or the institution itself-is critical. Assessments about transitional justice turn on personal appraisals and motivations as well as larger issues regarding whether the institution has contributed to truth, justice, and reconciliation (Stepakoff et al 2014(Stepakoff et al , 2015a(Stepakoff et al , 2015bCody et al 2014;Clark 2014;Stover 2005). These differences between the personal versus institutional are mirrored in findings across different types of mechanisms and diverse violent conflicts (David 2017) with two patterns emerging-(1) most studies use the constructs of positive or negative to ask about participant perceptions regarding the transitional justice mechanism and (2) those who testify are markedly more positive about their personal interactions as compared to whether they believe the institution has performed well (Doak 2011a;Brounéus 2010;Hamber 2009;Hayner 2010;Stover 2005;Stepakoff et al 2014Stepakoff et al , 2015aDoak 2011aDoak , 2011bMendeloff 2009;Clark 2014;Subotić 2009;Hayden 2011;Orentlicher 2008Orentlicher , 2010Herman 1992;Laub 1992).…”