Paths to Justice: From Smartphone to Hybrid Tribunal (Practical Guide)

Illustrative photo

Accountability is not only high-level jurisprudence, but also a practical process. It consists of three stages, and the work at the first stage determines the success of the last one.

Stage 1: Collection and Preservation of Evidence (Today)

The court works not with emotions, but with facts that meet the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Problem: A video from a Telegram channel or a screenshot is not always admissible evidence. The defense in court claims it is “edited” or “fake”.

Solution: Standardization of collection. For this, there is the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations. It defines how to verify and preserve digital data (videos, photos, metadata) so that it can be accepted by the ICC or a national court.

Role of the NAM: Coordination of documentation and verification efforts. Creation of a unified, protected archive of crimes (based on the example of the Syrian IIIM archive), where evidence is cataloged and stored according to international standards.

Stage 2: Use of Existing Mechanisms (Tomorrow)

We do not need to wait for a “big” tribunal.

Universal Jurisdiction: the NAM and human rights advocates must not only inform, but act as agents of justice: assist victims in filing cases in Lithuania, Poland, Germany, provide them with lawyers, transfer verified evidence.

Sanctions Pressure: Use collected evidence to impose personal sanctions on judges, prosecutors, and mid-level security officials.

ICC Lobbying: Submit verified evidence (especially relating to the deportation of children) directly to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.

Historic mistake (failure): The case of Omar al-Bashir (Sudan). The ICC issued an arrest warrant, but has no police force of its own. Bashir remained in power for years. This shows that an ICC warrant is only the beginning. Without political will and pressure, it remains just a piece of paper.

Stage 3: Transitional Justice (After Change)

When change comes to Belarus, the country will face a major challenge: the national judicial system will be completely discredited and deprived of public trust.

Debate on models:

“Forgiveness” Model (South Africa): Creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). In post-apartheid South Africa, those who committed crimes could receive amnesty in exchange for full and public admission of guilt.

Counterargument: Many consider this a “deal with the devil” and a betrayal of victims who did not see punishment.

“National Court” Model (Argentina): After the fall of the junta, Argentina held the Trial of the Juntas in 1985, sentencing its former leaders.

Success: It became a powerful act of national cleansing.

Problem for Belarus: In Argentina, there remained an untouched part of the judiciary. In Belarus, the system is compromised entirely.

Most likely model for Belarus: Hybrid Tribunal

What is it? A court integrated into the Belarusian system but with the participation of international judges, prosecutors, and investigators.

Examples: Special Court for Sierra Leone (convicted Charles Taylor), Kosovo Specialist Chambers.

Advantages: Combines international expertise (impartiality, resources) with national legitimacy (it happens in Minsk, not in The Hague).

Conclusion: The path to justice is a marathon. It requires meticulous evidence collection today (Stage 1), persistent pressure through universal jurisdiction tomorrow (Stage 2), and preparation for the creation of a legitimate hybrid tribunal in the new Belarus (Stage 3).

---