 and the first think tech broadcast day of the year, January 3rd, while exciting. This is heading into our, what, 22nd year already about that. And we have Heli Halodnik and Ellie Halodnik and she's here to help us celebrate that and to talk about transitional justice, which is very important for us to understand on a global basis. Title of our show on transitional justice today is transitional justice in the Seychelles, okay? And the first order of business is to introduce Ellie. She's with Project Expedite Justice. Who are you, Ellie? And how did you get into our studio? Yeah, so I was a former intern, legal intern with Project Expedite Justice. And that's how I was introduced to think tech Hawaii. Why are you doing transitional justice? Why are you focusing on the Seychelles today? So I actually just completed my fellowship in international human rights law with my school, my program in international human rights law at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. And through that fellowship, I was actually fortunate enough to complete a legal internship with the Truth Reconciliation and National Unity Commission in the Seychelles. So we don't know where we're all going. We're at a time where it's hard to predict. But are you committed to a life in the law? Are you committed to a life in the law about transitional justice and human rights? Is that a decision you've made? Sure, I think it was a decision I made a really long time ago. I was definitely one of those kids who just knew what they wanted to do and stuck to their guns. So I've always wanted to pursue a career in international human rights law. What that career looked like has changed quite a bit over the years, but... I'm sure. Why? Why have you dedicated yourself to this subject? Sure, mainly out of just family history. I grew up hearing stories of relatives, my step-grandfather. His family died in the Holocaust as Roma victims. And that really inspired me to learn more about what human rights meant, historically and within the current landscape. And it sort of took off from there. Yeah, good. Very nice. I admire people like you. Okay, let's talk about the Seychelles. First, we want to put them a map up there. And for those people who cannot pinpoint where the Seychelles are, you can help them understand. So here's the map. And why don't you talk us through the map, okay? Yes, so the Seychelles is actually an archipelago or a makeup of about 115 different islands off the coast of Africa, just there in the Indian Ocean. The biggest island is going to be Mahi Island. That's where the commission is actually based in the capital city of Victoria. While the Seychelles is a makeup of 115 different islands, really they're only three to four, it inhabited islands. There's Mahi, Crawlin, and I'm trying to see on the map. I will probably pronounce it wrong. Ladinga, don't hold me to that. I won't be able to correct you at all, Ellie. Yeah, but the main island that we're going to be talking about is Mahi Island. Okay, is it a separate country, the Seychelles? No, it's not a separate country. It's really just considered the main island. That's where the International Airport is located. That's where the capital city is located, and that's where the majority of the population resides. And what's the racial makeup of the Seychelles? I know you have some of these islands on the Indian Ocean, west of India and east of India, and it's sort of a racial combination, hapahali kind of thing. What is it like in the Seychelles? Sure, so the Seychelles, it has a unique history and the fact that prior to becoming a French colony, it wasn't an inhabited, the islands weren't inhabited, and I'm probably not the best person to discuss the specific details of the history of the country, but to my understanding, it was a French colony before becoming a British colony, before gaining independence in 1976, which really leads us into the events surrounding that the violations committed in relation to the commission itself. Let me drop a footnote on that and say that, this is another story that began with colonialism, and people should be aware that colonialism wasn't all that was cracked up to be, and when it ended, and often in the world it ended because the colonialism itself was a failed phenomenon, and then afterward it left a vacuum, and the vacuum was filled by political forces that were not particularly democratic. So in 1976, they weaned themselves away from colonialism, but only to follow a coup, right? Can you talk about that? Yes, so the coup occurred in June, 1977. The leader of the coup was Albert Rene, and at the time he was the vice president of the country, and he overthrew James Mancham, who held the position of president. And that was actually the first government that formed following the establishment of the country as an independent country. So essentially the first established government was overthrown, then the coup d'état occurred in 1977. It was a one-party state from 1977 until 1993. However, Albert Rene held the presidency from 1977 until 2004. Paul, can we say it was a democracy? You know, I think that's kind of debatable. You know, up until 1993, I think that's gonna be a hard argument to make since it was a one-party state. It is to a certain degree a dictatorship within that point. Following the dual state and the collapse of the transition from the one-party system, there are more arguments that could be made for a democracy. And really the transition of government, to a certain extent, the opposition didn't gain a real footing until 2016 when they won a majority in the National Assembly. Okay, so we had what amounted to a dictatorship one-party system from the 70s until what, the year 2000 or so. And then after that, it became more democratic, is that fair to say? And as you see it evolve into the 21st century, it became more democratic, is that right? I think so. There's an argument that while the country became democratic, there's also certain allegations of corruption. And that to an extent always calls into question the democracy aspect of a government. But the dual-party system following 1993 was really when democracy had a footing in the country, I would say. Okay, well, that's good. And I suppose they maintained a certain connection with their former colonial parents, so to speak, France. Well, France was- Or was it the UK, which one? Yes, so the United Kingdom was really in charge of the colony up into independence. I don't know how long the French had the influence, but the language that's spoken in Seychelles is Seychelles Creole. Does that mean Seychelles English? No, it is a dialect of French. It's not exactly similar to, but you can relate it to the Creole spoken and the Caribbean. The closest dialect from what I've heard is the Creole spoken and Mauritius, which is the nearest country. Mauritius is a similar island state. Yes, yes. So, okay, so looking at it now at some point along the way, and this is why we're here today, there were violations of human rights in the Seychelles. And most people who follow the violations of human rights don't necessarily think of the Seychelles as a place where human rights were violated, but why don't you tell us what happened and what was the circumstance of this violation of human rights? Sure, so the commission was mandated in 2018, like I said, to investigate human rights violations committed during or in relation to the coup d'etat in 1977. Whoever the violations are alleged to have been committed from 1977 up into the mid to late 2000s. So really it's not just the- It's more than 20 years. Oh, I think just over 40 years, almost 60 years. 40 years. Because like I said, former president Albert Rene was in power from 1977 until 2004 and his political party was in power or they held the majority until 2016 and held the presidency until 2020. So you can see how certain specific acts were committed within certain timeframes, but really as a whole, different acts and different violations were committed throughout that time period. More alleged violations- That's the connection between the coup in 1976 and these human rights violations. What I'm thinking is that if you have a coup, you have a vacuum of power, you have usually a military coup, they have the guns and it's predictable that there would be violence in the coup. But you're talking about violence and human rights violations that lasted long after the coup itself. So what was the nature of that violence? What was the nature of those violations of human rights in all this long, multi-decade period? Sure, absolutely. So the Truth Reconciliation and National Unity Commission is similar to most truth commissions that it was built after a transition and political power. So the scope of the acts that there are the more, what we might consider gross serious violations of human rights law. So torture, rape, enforced disappearances, unlawful killings, deprivation of physical liberty, arbitrary arrests, all of these acts are included within the mandate. And these acts are acts by the military? Not necessarily. They could be acts committed by the military, by any branch of the government. And how a lot of, the Seychelles is a very small community. It's a very small country. In 1977, when the coup occurred, the residency was about, there was population of 60,000, around 60,000, I think. And currently there's just about a population of 100,000. So not a lot of, not a huge country by any means, population-wise. So a lot of, there are allegations and certain cases, potentially where acts were committed by civilians or they were committed within the umbrella of politics, by a politician, by a civilian, acting within politics. It doesn't necessarily, there is no limitation as to- Well, I'm thinking of Rwanda. With Project Expedite Justice, we've had a couple of shows about Rwanda. And the remarkable thing, people don't realize is that in the genocide in Rwanda, everybody was involved. You picked sides. It was sort of like the country was divided into two sides. And what did our guests say? You woke up in the morning and your job was to go out and kill people. And that's how you took your sides. You were operating on one side or the other. Is it like that where people, ordinary civilian people, even not government employees or officials would go out and kill people or make them disappear or just sort of throw out the rule of law? No, it's my knowledge that, and there could be a different conclusion when the commission releases its findings in October of 2022 this year. There aren't necessarily a huge number of unlawful killings. Since the coup and since the acts that the commission is violating was largely out of this political transition, one way to view it is you're either affiliated with the party in power or you're not. And that's a good way to understand the different violations and alleged violations before the commission as well. There are obviously these violent acts that are, like you said, committed in most instances of coups and military takeovers, but there's also violations related to forcefully evictions and wrongful terminations of employment, forced exile, unjustified acquisition or loss of property, where these alleged violations occurred to victims because they were not affiliated with the government or they were considered, they were not affiliated with the political party in power or they were considered to be, they were seen to be against the party. Some of it doesn't sound like a violation of human rights. Maybe it's a violation of decency and good order. Maybe it's a violation of the norms you would expect in any civilized country, but some of those things you described don't sound like violations of human rights. So how did the commission get started? Who is the commission? Why did the commission get started? How long has it existed and what is it doing? So the commission was mandated in 2018. Like I said, in 2016, there was a transition in the National Assembly where the opposition coalition became the majority party, but up until 2020, the presidency was always held by a member of the same political party as former president Albert Renee, the United States Shelfs Party. And in 2018, the majority party in the National Assembly was the opposition coalition, but at the same time, there's still the presidency of the same political party. So there are some allegations that not allegations and potentially criticism is just internal debate that the commission is run in politics or it's seen as political because it was created under the previous political party that did commit or allegedly committed, a large part of these violations. So it came out of that, it's not external. It's like there's nobody in the international court of criminal justice or anything involved. This is a national experience rather than an international one. So yes and no, most of the commissioners are national commissioners, but the chairperson of the commission is actually an international citizen, she's Australian. And she is an expert in international and human rights law and international criminal law. So she does fill that role with a high level of expertise and a lot of experience. So this commission is trying to find the truth. It's a truth commission. Yes. It's trying to find out who acted badly and who the victims were. To what end? They have the ability to indict violators. They have the ability to prosecute and put them in jail. How does that work? So the commission does not hold the power. It's not a, you know, what some might classify as a, I believe the term is retributive justice, retributive justice, you know, it's not a criminal mechanism. It is formed as a truth commission. So its purpose is to investigate the complaints brought before it by victims, victim family members, representative of victims. Determine, you know, investigate these complaints, determine whether or not, human rights violations were committed, you know, in what context? Because there is really a large question of what is the truth. In a lot of, of say, Showa, you know, people's minds, there is the question of, well, what is the truth regarding, you know, How do they find the truth out? They have investigators. Yes. They, and the investigators, I guess, since it's not necessarily a prosecutorial organization, the investigators come before the tribunal, before the commission, and they present evidence, they have findings that they, you know, found when they investigated and they, and they tell the commission on what happened. And then what happens? What does the commission do with that? Well, the investigative teams are, are within the commission. And, you know, say Showa citizens are, anybody is free to, to bring evidence before the commission. And, and not just evidence, but any, you know, they can be heard really on, on any matter relevant to, to the mandate of the commission. Is it all public? Most of the hearings are public. They are broadcasted. You know, on the, they, I think believe there's like a YouTube channel, you know, that there may be via website, but they are all broadcasted. Well, not all I should say, but, but most are publicly broadcasted. Okay. They, they planning to make a report. Do they have an obligation to wrap it up by a certain day and make a report? Yes. So, so within the mandate, but the commission has three years to, you know, investigate these allegations and, and produce a final report with recommendations on reparations, remedies, different avenues, you know, for, for reparations for victims. And the commission also has, you know, for, for reparations for victims. And the commission also has the ability to grant amnesty, which I, I know you know, with the previous episode on truth commissions, it is a big criticism facing truth commissions, but within its mandate, the commission does have the ability to, to grant. So, so what, you know, what, what kind of resistance, if any, does the commission meet? I mean, does it got government support right now? Has it got the support of the people? Are there, are there those who don't like the commission, who want to stand in its way, who refuse to appear, who refuse to cooperate? We have that in this country, by the way. I just, I wonder, you know, how well it's being received. Sure. So I guess I'll address each of those, you know, individually. I believe the first point was, is there, is there support? Was that? Yeah, it's a government. First point is, is the government supporting? I, I think that, that is a big issue. The commission is, you know, they do not have a big budget. They're, their recommended budget is repeatedly slashed on. So they don't get a lot of financial support from the government. And they also don't get a lot of, and, you know, this is just based on, on my observations. They don't get a lot of support from, from the government and the different government agencies. Despite the fact that, you know, there was this transition of power from the political party where, you know, who was in power for these alleged human rights violations to the opposition coalition, the resistance has been met really throughout the entire mandate. But it was the government that made the mandate, right? Yes. Yes. So how come the government makes the mandate, then then the government doesn't support the commission they mandated. So I think that, that's a huge question that, that is asked in most. Truth commissions. You know, and you know, I think that answer may depend on, on the individual circumstances within each truth commission. In the Seychelles, you know, I think that that is the right question to ask, you know, why, why wouldn't the government want to, to support this commission? Yeah. I don't. Let me throw a possible, let me throw a possible answer at you. It may be there are people in the government that have exposure. Just the way there are people in the United States, Congress who may have exposure for what they did and connection with our own homegrown insurrection. It could be there are people in the, in the Seychelles government who are afraid and they, they don't, they don't, they want to subvert this commission. Am I right? Is there any talk of that? I think there could, there could be a lot of different possibilities. In most truth commissions, you know, there, there's evidence of, you know, politicians who, who were involved in, in the allegations who, who, you know, are hesitant to, to cooperate because of other criminal acts like, you know, corruption and, and there is an anti-corruption commission within the Seychelles as well that that's operating, you know, in a similar mandate and within a similar timeline. So, you know, and, and the Seychelles is, is unique in the fact that it's a very, very small country, population wise and, you know, so. They got a lot of commissions there, that's for sure. They got more commissions than they need. What about the other factors that I mentioned? What, what about the public? Is the public supporting this commission and are people responding to, you know, subpoena type process requests that they come down and testify and speak before the commission? Is there public support? I, I believe that there's public support. Yes. Because, you know, the, the time that that's elapsed between a lot of these violations, you know, truth commissions are, are essential for fulfilling the right to truth. So victims, victim family members, you know, they've gone years without, without knowing the truth about, you know, what happened and, and going years without, you know, fully understanding the circumstances and, and years without having, having a remedy. So I think that there is a lot of participation within the community to, to assist the commission's investigations. And, and to, to bring complaints themselves. Well, there are two possible remedies. One is civil, one is criminal. And I understand the commission, although it may have the ability to pardon somebody, it may not have the ability to either issue a money judgment or to prosecute specifically can only make recommendations. And since it's a national mandate rather than international one, they can make recommendations to the same government who mandated them, but who isn't necessarily supporting them. Those, those recommendations, Ellie, tell me if I'm wrong may not go anywhere. Well, the, I think we can, we can look at those from as two different issues. So the biggest, you know, remedy that, that, that a lot of the cases that the commission is dealing with, obviously the, the biggest remedy sought is going to be compensation. You know, a lot of these alleged violations were, you know, committed within the circumstances of some sort of financial harm, like unjustified acquisition of property, you know, wrongful termination of employment. So there is a financial aspect tied to the crime. So reparations and, and, you know, financial reparations is obviously a big incentive. And a big responsibility that, that the commission has to meet. Well, let me, let me, let me, so if I get wrongfully terminated treated badly. In this country, theoretically, it doesn't always happen, theoretically, I get a lawyer and I sue the guy or the company or the government for wrongful termination. And that's been going on for a while. Why do you have to have a truth commission to give a financial remedy to someone who is wrongfully terminated? It seems like the long way around the horn to do something that could be done in a court proceeding any day of the week. Well, so how, how a lot of the, the cases before the commission are, you know, there isn't an overlap of multiple violations. So, you know, you have, you know, a possible alleged violation of wrongful termination of employment. You may also have an alleged violation of forced exile. So, and a lot of that stems again, I think it's, you know, going back to, to sort of the political aspects of the commission. A lot of that is based on discrimination, political discrimination, because you're, you're perceived to be, you know, either against the government, against the party, you know, political affiliation, political discrimination in general. It may also, you know, forced exile. But a lot of these aren't just isolated incidents. So, so there is an overlap. And, you know, going back to the, the political transition again, it often wasn't the case that you could bring, you know, a case in court, you know, under the, the one party system, you know, until 1993, that there, you know, you could argue that there wasn't a civil, a civil remedy available. Or there was corruption in whatever pretended to be the courts. There was corruption. So you, you can't rely, you know, no public confidence in that system. And therefore the only way to have any remedy would be by a truth commission. So what is, what is your role in the role of project expedite justice and what's going on in, say, shells and this commission and their investigation? Are you helping individuals? Are you helping the commission? Are you an observer or a participant in the process? So I completed a legal internship with the commission as part of my fellowship in international human rights law. I was a remote intern for about six months. And then this past December, 2021. That's still funny to say. I still, you know, it's still weird saying we're in 2022. Right. But this past December, I was able to visit, say, shells. And, and, you know, work in the office. Really just as a, as a consultant to, to assist in any way that I could while I was in the country. So I got to, you know, observe the commission, observe the country in general, the different stakeholders, you know, I got to meet a lot of the staff. It was a really great opportunity. Very valuable experience. Yes, very. Let me, let me add why one of the reasons I think it's valuable. And it's my last question to you today is this, you know, you mentioned that there was an Australian chair of the commission that it was mandated locally, as opposed to many other commissions that have international routes, you know, international mandates, international connections with the International Court of Criminal Justice and the like. This is in the se shell. This is intramural in its own way. And I, it's very interesting. You said that this woman does this sort of thing as, as an occupation, as a career. She goes from place to place. Right. And she acts as the chair of a commission that would, that would do investigations and seek the truth on human rights violations. Well, the chairperson is an expert in international human rights law and international criminal law. I don't know if she has, has been the chair of any other truth commissions. I don't believe so. But, but she's had roles and, and other human rights mechanisms and other criminal mechanisms. So she has the experience in, in the field of law in general. And it sounds, it sounds like it could happen though. I mean, even if she's not doing that, it could be a new generation of international criminal justice people like your own self, where you hold yourself out to be somebody who could advise or chair a truth commission in any country where there is a political room to allow to create a mandated commission. And, you know, we, we both know that there are civil rights, rather criminal criminal violations, human rights violations all around the world. Today, my guess is that they're increasing. In fact, we, we discussed this before the show. They're increasing. You know, if you look at the, the vectors in the last 10 or 20 years, we have more of this. We have more people behind barbed wire. I'm thinking of the movie by Ai Wei Wei, well, human flow where he, he tells us there are 65 million people who, who are perpetually behind barbed wire in camps around the world. And to me, that's a, you know, a violation of human rights right there. And so it seems to me it could be a new occupation, a new place for you and people with your training and interest to, you know, help and be the chair of a commission or be counsel to a commission and make the thing work, make it work in terms of its internal procedures, make it work in terms of its investigatory functions, the writing of its report, the dealing with the public, the dealing with the government. This is a hard, hard thing. And it's always going to have some resistance points, as I mentioned, that I've discussed with you. So what do you think about that? You think this could be a career. You don't have to be Australian, you know. Well, I think that there, there's definitely an argument for sort of the key role that international consultants and international experts have played in the commission and in, and in a lot of truth commissions in the past, because truth commissions do exist within, you know, a pretty particularized field and a specialized field in international human rights law and transitional justice. And in general, to my understanding is really, you know, a recent development. And it's a recent field where, you know, a lot of people don't have training on these topics. But, you know, with that, I think that while international consultants and, you know, international chairpersons and, you know, international experts all have important roles that they can play. Truth commissions in general, the real purpose and the real value and truth commissions themselves is, is the importance that they hold really within the domestic community. Yeah, well, if everybody's watching them, watching, participating, you know, and to some degree while, you know, staff may not have the background or the training going into roles and truth commissions and, you know, other international human rights bodies. You know, training obviously helps with a lot of that and can build capacity. But the unique knowledge that the Seishawa, you know, worker, the Seishawa staff and, you know, other domestic staff and other truth commissions have is that they understand the context that these violations were committed within and they recognize the importance to building the truth and investigating these complaints in order to build the truth and, you know, essentially fill the role that that truth commissions were, you know, mandated to create, which was, you know, uniting the country. Well, yeah, that's true. But I would say that the country may get behind them to a certain degree and just thinking, not necessarily the Seishawa's, but anywhere, and people may support them. Maybe the government gives them at least lip service. The real question, and I don't know if you have been involved in this, the real question is when the report is written, when the commission goes home, when the Australian lady goes back to Sydney, whatever, what happens then? And if you, you know, if you have a staff that will stay behind, represent the will, the findings, the recommendations of that commission, then you have a follow through. But it writes a report and the report goes on the back shelf and nobody gives a rip about the report. That's a failure. And so to me, you know, at least half of the energy that would go into a commission has to be on the follow through to make something happen so that the people who had confidence in it while it was going on can have confidence that it wasn't a waste of time. Do you agree? I think that, you know, one of the key pillars of transitional justice is, you know, memorialization. And I think that that has to do with a lot of the points that you're making. It's not just, you know, investigating and establishing the truth of these alleged human rights violations, but it's, okay, well, what are we going to do with the truth? And whether that is, you know, criminal accountability, whether that is, you know, granting amnesty when there is full and frank disclosure and, you know, and other guidelines and conditions have been met. Or whether it's, okay, we're going to, you know, incorporate this into the education, you know, let's teach the next generation what happened. And, you know, how do we prevent things like this from happening? I don't mind everything they find. And if I had to restyle the title of our show today, the title of our show is transitional justice in the Seychelles, I would change it to the following quote, what are we going to do with the truth? Question mark end quote. Well, thank you, Ellie. It's been great to talk to you and explore these things. And I very much admire your interest and your participation in what's going on in the Seychelles. And I think it's only a beginning. And I hope we can circle back on this and other countries that you are involved with. Thank you so much, Ellie. Thank you. Happy New Year. Thank you too.