JUSTICE FOR TUZLA YOUTH - IS IT POSSIBLE?
JUSTICE FOR TUZLA YOUTH - IS IT POSSIBLE?

Summary/Abstract: Achieving justice in post-conflict societies represents a fundamental and complex challenge, particularly when state mechanisms fail in their primary duty to protect citizens from systemic war crimes, thereby irrevocably rupturing the established social contract. This paper examines the theoretical and practical limitations of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) following the 1992–1995 armed conflict. The central dilemma addresses whether "absolute justice” a utopian concept aiming to completely erase the trauma and consequences of mass atrocities—is achievable, or if victims and a fractured society must pursue a flawed but attainable alternative. Utilizing a critical qualitative approach, this research thoroughly analyzes the May 25, 1995, Tuzla Gate (Tuzlanska kapija) massacre, wherein an artillery shell fired by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) killed 71 young civilians and injured over 100. The analysis evaluates the efficacy of post-conflict judicial and social responses, specifically focusing on the trial of VRS commander Novak Đukić. The findings clearly demonstrate that retributive criminal justice, while fundamentally necessary for establishing historical truth, is drastically insufficient on its own. The Đukić case illustrates severe systemic deficits: the limitation of legal prosecution to a single individual rather than the comprehensive chain of command, the evasion of penal execution due to the convicted perpetrator's flight to Serbia, and the persistent proliferation of aggressive revisionist campaigns that continuously deny judicially established facts. Furthermore, the manuscript identifies critical structural failures across other transitional justice pillars. State reparations remain deeply discriminatory and inherently fragmented along regional and ethnic lines, truth-seeking is paralyzed by segregated educational narratives, and institutional reforms have failed to dismantle the ethno-political divisions that originally fueled the conflict. The study ultimately concludes that demanding "absolute justice"—which seeks to undo the irreversible damage of mass crimes—is an unattainable illusion that inevitably leads to cynicism and social paralysis. Instead, post-conflict societies must dedicate themselves to "possible justice," a multidimensional mosaic comprising rigorous criminal accountability, inclusive memorialization, equitable material compensation, and deep institutional restructuring designed to uproot ethno-nationalist ideologies. This synergy of imperfect mechanisms provides the only realistic framework to restore victim dignity, counteract historical denial, and guarantee the non-repetition of violence in deeply divided societies.

• Details
• Contents