I've been persuaded by George Mitchell's approach to the GFA for some time. Did/does that more resemble truth and reconciliation or golden bridges? Both have been criticised for "allowing crimes to go unpunished, and creating impunity for serious human rights abusers. Their roles and abilities in this respect depend on their mandates, which vary widely." T&R mostly tend towards restorative than retributive justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_commission
Mr Mitchell said: “I know that each of your parties – like all political parties in the world – have some of what I call the 100 percenters, they want everything their way all the time – to them, any compromise is a sign of weakness,” he said.
“I say to you that reasoned, principled compromise is essential, especially in divided societies. It reflects a belief in democratic values that we all are in this together.
“There is great depth in recognising that the only way to help us emerge from the rubble of conflict is that we must learn to understand one another. We don’t need to love one another.
“We don’t even need to like one another, although we hope we could. But we must learn to understand one another and to be able to say yes to one another, especially when the quicker and easier answer is no.
Other matters aside, I'll be interested to see who, on what grounds, under whose aegis, people can be prosecuted. I'm self-confessedly ignorant on this. If not prosecution, is it acknowledgement of contribution to harms with a commitment to some form of restorative rather than retributive justice?