Transitional justice is key to addressing Tigray’s conflict-related sexual violence
The findings of the Tigray genocide inquiry should be read as a call to strengthen transitional justice, not repudiate it.
Published on 11 November 2025 in
ISS Today
By
Ikubaje John Gbodi
Head, Transitional Justice Unit, Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security, African Union Commission
On 16 October, the Commission of Inquiry on Tigray Genocide (CITG) released its landmark report documenting atrocities allegedly committed during the northern Ethiopia war from 2020-2022. The figures are staggering: 152 108 victims were subjected to rape, including gang rape by multiple perpetrators, and over 37 000 were sexually enslaved.
The CITG was established in May 2022 by the Tigray regional administration to investigate and document human rights violations and the damage caused by the war. Although there was some level of cooperation with federal institutions, no formal acknowledgement or legal endorsement of the commission’s mandate is publicly available.
The report said the CITG’s inquiry reached 481 201 women and girls across nearly all parts of Tigray. Sixty percent of respondents experienced horrific forms of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), which the commission characterises as core international crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The report identifies the perpetrators as military forces, including the Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF), Ethiopian National Defence Force (ENDF), Amhara militia and Afar forces. Tigrayan forces were not part of the inquiry.
While women and girls were noted as the primary targets of sexual violence, the report acknowledged that boys and men were also victims. No specific data was provided for the latter.
Although one may question the accuracy of the figures, disputes over numbers do not diminish the reality of victims’ suffering or the imperative for redress.
In its recommendations, the report refers to Ethiopia’s transitional justice process as ineffective, partial, and incapable of delivering justice. Some interpret this as dismissing the broader relevance and potential of the process.
The assertion that Ethiopia’s transitional justice process represents victor’s justice – selective and politically influenced – cannot be entirely dismissed. Ethiopia’s political landscape remains deeply polarised, and when state forces, regional militias and allied actors are among the alleged perpetrators, doubts about impartiality are inevitable.
Historical experiences reinforce such scepticism. Ethiopia’s post-1991 transitional justice process and the post-election trials of political parties in 2005 exemplified victor’s justice. Internationally, the same tendency has persisted since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of the 1940s, when accountability was pursued selectively. Across Africa, transitional justice processes in countries such as South Africa, The Gambia, South Sudan and Liberia have been delayed or selective regarding accountability.
Both the national process and CITG report focus too narrowly on individual and clinical psychosocial support
However, rejecting the process entirely risks misunderstanding its origins and intent. Ethiopia’s Transitional Justice Policy is not an ad hoc response to the Tigray conflict; it is a comprehensive framework that predates the war and seeks to address decades of violence and systemic injustice. The process was conceived as a long-term national project encompassing victims across all regions.
Likewise, the CITG’s argument that Ethiopia’s approach – which prioritises national prosecution through domestic courts – is inherently inadequate is debatable. International mechanisms that the CITG prefers, such as the International Criminal Court or hybrid tribunals, are by design, subsidiary; they intervene only when a state is unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Ethiopia’s decision to pursue accountability through special benches or a court is not, in itself, a sign of failure. The critical question is whether these institutions can earn public trust and meet international standards.
Surveys and national consultations indicate that while Ethiopians have limited confidence in their judiciary, they are even less supportive of international or hybrid mechanisms. The prevailing sentiment is that justice must be nationally owned and rooted in domestic institutions. Ethiopia’s priority should be strengthening judicial independence, ensuring credible investigations and embedding victim-centred approaches – not abandoning national jurisdiction before it begins.
Yet, some aspects of the commission’s critique are indisputable. The CITG’s concern that Ethiopia’s process doesn’t establish a credible pathway to investigate and prosecute crimes attributed to foreign forces is justified. The report says the EDF was responsible for just over half the violence across multiple areas and acting with genocidal intent, compared to the ENDF, Afar and Amhara forces (Figure 2).
Ethiopia’s Transitional Justice Policy does not provide for accountability for the EDF, focusing instead on extradition – an approach that is unlikely to yield substantial results. In practice, prosecuting foreign actors lies beyond the scope of a national policy and demands regional and international cooperation.
Another sobering reality is that while the CITG’s findings expose the magnitude of trauma, few survivors have had access to professional counselling, economic support or safe spaces. The report notes that 85.9% of survivors have not accessed psychosocial services, and 80.6% have not received medical care.
This should have been a priority as it represents the most basic and urgent element of human recovery. Without mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), the transitional justice process risks being hollow. Victims who are traumatised or stigmatised cannot meaningfully participate in truth-seeking, reconciliation or accountability efforts, be it a national, hybrid or international process.
Data in the CITG report highlights the need to revisit Ethiopia’s transitional justice process to prioritise and mainstream MHPSS beyond the reparations pillar and counselling support.
Both the national process and CITG report are limited by their narrow focus on individual and clinical psychosocial support. True recovery must include community-based healing rooted in traditional, religious and cultural practices – particularly given the report’s finding that the violence has shattered Tigray’s psychosocial fabric and social cohesion.
Ethiopia’s wounds are too deep, its divisions too entrenched, to allow transitional justice to languish
Moreover, not all responses need to be centrally driven. A decentralised approach, as demonstrated by the Truth and Reconciliation process in Ethiopia’s Somali region, could be valuable. Tigray could similarly establish a regional victim support programme prioritising MHPSS.
A major limitation of the CITG report is that while it powerfully documents the suffering of Tigrayan women and girls, it overlooks non-Tigrayan victims of the northern war and other conflicts in Ethiopia. Previous reports, including by Amnesty International, recorded Tigrayan forces’ abuses against civilians in Amhara. Although the commission’s mandate was confined to Tigray, its failure to acknowledge other victims risks reinforcing a hierarchy of victimhood.
This echoes earlier patterns, such as during the Dergue trials, which narrowly portrayed the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party as the sole victim of the 1970s Red Terror. A genuine national reckoning must recognise Ethiopia’s many unacknowledged victims.
Ultimately, the CITG report shows that the need for transitional justice is undeniable and urgent. The country’s wounds are too deep, its divisions too entrenched, to allow the process to languish. Without a credible mechanism to address the past – including atrocities in Tigray – Ethiopia risks being perpetually haunted by its history.
As such, the CITG report should not be read as a repudiation of transitional justice, but rather a call to strengthen it. Its findings underscore the need for a credible, survivor-centred process that integrates justice, truth, reparations and institutional reform.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
