2026.08.12 · International justice and survivor support
TRIAL International is a Geneva-based human rights NGO founded in 2002. It works against impunity for international crimes and supports victims seeking justice. Its approach combines strategic litigation, documentation, expertise-sharing and advocacy with close cooperation with survivors and local partners. TRIAL International’s official introduction
Our afternoon discussion on 12 August covered cases, organisational development, fundraising and monitoring. The staff involved represented external relations, grant reporting and international investigations. Their different roles helped reveal the work that surrounds a legal case, including activities that rarely appear in a headline about a verdict.
Three gaps between a violation and meaningful access to justice
The team organised its explanation around three gaps.
The accountability gap arises when the justice system where a crime occurred cannot or will not investigate. Documentation, witness identification, evidence gathering and legal strategy become ways to identify another route.
The access-to-justice gap concerns the person seeking a remedy. A court may have jurisdiction, yet a survivor may still face barriers involving travel, security, administration or health. Legal representation matters, but so do the practical conditions that make participation possible.
The information gap appears when proceedings take place far from affected communities. Reporting may be in another language or available through channels that people cannot easily access. A case can move forward while those most closely connected to it remain unsure what is happening.
The three gaps describe a connected process: whether accountability is possible, whether people can participate and whether communities can understand the proceedings. A weakness at any stage changes the practical meaning of the legal response.
Connecting the Roger Lumbala trial to communities in the DRC
The team used the Roger Lumbala case to explain the timescale and support work involved. The case concerned atrocities committed in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002–2003. In December 2025, a Paris court convicted Lumbala of complicity in crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 30 years’ imprisonment. TRIAL’s published account records the verdict and years of work with survivors and Congolese partners. TRIAL’s account of the case
The visit added detail about how proceedings were connected to people outside the courtroom. Staff described cooperation with other NGOs and local partners to locate survivors, support participation and provide psychological assistance during the hearings.
They also discussed bringing Congolese journalists to Paris to follow the trial. Coverage travelled through news outlets, radio and social channels, making the proceedings more accessible to people who could not follow a distant courtroom directly.
According to the team’s account, discussions with affected communities after the judgment revealed both appreciation and difficult questions. People welcomed accountability, but also asked why justice had to take place so far from home. A successful prosecution therefore did not remove the need to discuss distance, participation and the capacity of local institutions.
Universal jurisdiction as a legal route
Universal jurisdiction was a central concept in the discussion. It can allow certain serious international crimes to be addressed outside the country where they occurred, under legal conditions that do not depend solely on the usual territorial or nationality connections.
The speakers emphasised the significance of national law and procedure. The offences covered, the suspect’s location, procedural requirements and questions of immunity can affect what is possible. A grave violation does not mean that any court can automatically hear the case.
TRIAL’s work includes connecting credible information to an available legal route. That involves research, partners, evidence and an assessment of risks to the people concerned. Its public tools bring together information about cases and national frameworks for practitioners working through these issues. Universal jurisdiction tools
How does an NGO choose a case?
The question-and-answer session made case selection more concrete. The team considers whether a situation falls within its mandate, whether information is credible, whether a legal route exists and what risks participation may create for survivors, witnesses and staff.
Time also matters. Proceedings can continue for years. Expectations need to be managed honestly, because participation and the provision of evidence do not guarantee a successful outcome.
This is one reason the wider NGO community matters. Another organisation may have more suitable expertise, stronger local relationships or a different legal focus. When TRIAL is not the best organisation to take a matter forward, partnerships and referrals may offer another route.
Selection therefore combines mission, evidence, feasibility and responsibility towards participants. It is not simply a ranking of which injustice appears most serious.
Reports and maps as practical legal tools
The team also introduced the Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, an interactive map and country briefings. These resources organise developments that would otherwise remain scattered across languages and legal systems.
Progress in a case can mean the opening of an investigation, a hearing, a judgment or an important procedural decision. A useful overview therefore does more than count convictions. It helps practitioners compare approaches and understand how particular legal issues have been addressed.
Distribution was part of the explanation. Publishing a report online is one step; sharing it with prosecutors, investigators and other specialists helps it reach people who may use the information in their own work. Research and communication become part of the legal support system.
Sustaining work that may outlast a grant cycle
The staff introductions brought organisational infrastructure into view. External relations secures resources and maintains relationships. Grant monitoring and reporting explain how those resources are used. Investigation and programme teams develop the substantive work.
A slow case does not imply an absence of progress. Evidence may have been preserved, local legal capacity strengthened, participation made safer or information returned to affected communities long before a judgment is delivered.
The team also described phasing out work in some settings when local partners are better placed to continue. That requires attention to what remains after the external organisation reduces its role.
The visit presented international justice as a sustained sequence of tasks: finding a viable route, supporting people through it and ensuring that what happens in court remains connected to those whose lives the case concerns.