'MORE JUSTICE, LESS TRUTH' AT THE STL? DECOUPLING INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM COLLECTIVE TRUTH-TELLING IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon ('STL)) Trial Judgment in the Ayyash case contained some important comments that emphasised a decoupling of two sets of objectives in international criminal justice: individual criminal accountability and collective truth-telling. This article applauds these important comments as a welcome development in international criminal law. This article seeks to contextualise these important comments in the STL Trial Judgment within decades of international criminal jurisprudence regarding the place of historical truth-telling as a function of international criminal proceedings. This article will examine how international criminal justice evolved to promote the idea that truth- telling is one of the main objectives of international criminal trials. The article will then examine international criminal jurisprudence regarding balancing the objectives of truth-telling and individualised criminal accountability in international criminal proceedings and how these objectives have evolved over time. The article will also critically evaluate the normative claim regarding the lofty promises of truth-telling as an important tool for the realisation of peace and reconciliation in the context of international criminal proceedings. Against this background, the article will examine the noteworthy comments of the STL that decisively decouple the objectives of truth-telling from individualised criminal accountability in international criminal law. This article argues that while international criminal courts can certainly contribute to a range of transitional justice processes, international criminal justice alone cannot be regarded as the panacea, and the primary focus of an international court or tribunal must be the administration of individual criminal accountability.