The words “restorative justice” painted on the side of the wall of CIT-Bria’s new office triggered images of a punitive justice systems and fears of the international criminal court to armed groups in control of the Haute Kotto. In spite of having signed a peace agreement that delineates a pathway for justice in CAR, armed groups don’t seem ready to face the reality.

What started as threats to close down our offices and lock-up our staff ended with a green light to continue our justice work. CIT’s mediators sat down with the armed Generals to explain the differences and similarities between the formal justice system and restorative justice.

While accountability remains an essential feature of both processes, the criminal justice system is an adversarial process where crime is seen as a violation of the law and violations create the need to establish guilt. Justice requires the State to determine blame (guilt) and impose pain (punishment) on perpetrators. The system’s central focus is on the offender and what he or she deserves. Victims are on the side-line and the outcome is determined by a judge.

Alternatively, restorative justice (RJ) is a collaborative process where crime is seen as a violation of people and relationships and violations create an obligation to repair what was broken. Justice under the RJ paradigm, is centered on the victims, and involves respondents, family and community members affected by the damage. The process is an effort to make things right by addressing the harm done and its root causes. The process’ central focus is on the victim’s needs and the offender’s responsibility for repairing the harm. Outcomes are determined by the victim accompanied by all those affected.

The two system in a functional State are complementary to each other and restorative justice often helps courts overwhelmed with cases, vacate grievances and expedite processes giving victims a speedy resolution. In Bria, a city still under rebel control and without any judicial structures, community processes are the only recourse for victims seeking reparations.

In this judicial vacuum, CIT’s experience has shown that restorative processes provide victims closure and armed groups an opportunity to repair the harm they have done.

A lesson maybe on a way forward for the Central African government and the international community as they are trying to balance peace and justice in this volatile environment.