This article deals with confidentiality in mediation proceedings. Confidentiality is considered to be one of the key advantages of mediation. Usually the parties agree that they will not be compelled to produce evidence concerning the mediation, nor call the mediator as a witness in case of subsequent judicial proceedings. However, it is not sure how the court in civil judicial proceedings will handle such an agreement. The court will have to balance the interests of confidentiality and establishing the truth. In some cases it is clear that the court should not respect the confidentiality agreement, for example when there is an obligation to disclose evidence of a criminal offence. In other cases there might be proper grounds to let the confidentiality prevail, but there is no guarantee that the court will respect the confidentiality agreement. As part of the implementation of the European directive on mediation Member States are obliged to adopt provisions about admissibility of evidence in civil judicial proceedings in order to protect certain aspects of confidentiality of mediation proceedings.

This interview with Jeremy Waldron covers three topics. Firstly, we dealt with the methodology debate, that is, the discussion about how to proceed in analyzing the nature of law. Does the question ‘What is law?’ require a descriptive analysis of the concept of law or, rather, a normative exercise in political philosophy? Secondly, we spoke about the role of law in response to historic injustice, especially in relation to the restitution of property rights. On this topic Waldron vindicates the ‘supersession-thesis’, the idea that, due to changed circumstances and the passage of time, historic injustices become superseded. The third section of the interview is devoted to Waldron’s perspective on the citation of foreign law by national judges.

Jan van Dijk reageert op de discussie naar aanleiding van zijn artikel De komende emancipatie van het slachtoffer.

Based on a prize-winning master thesis in criminology, this article describes how the Rwandan Government chose to bring to justice all suspects of (crimes during) the 1994 genocide. Accordingly, it was decided to turn to Gacaca, the traditional Rwandan method of dispute resolution, in order to reach reconciliation as well as justice. A field study indicates that, when asked whether they think Gacaca can lead to reconciliation and justice, the majority of Rwandans think it can. However, six determinants of reconciliation have been deduced from the interviews. Because Gacaca can only have a clear positive impact on one of these factors – the need to meet – Gacaca can not be considered as an appropriate mechanism to achieve reconciliation in Rwanda. It also appears that justice is not a determinant for reconciliation.