Impunity Watch was conceived in 2004 as a project of the Dutch development organisation, Solidaridad, and registered in January 2008 as an independent Foundation (Stichting) in the Netherlands.

The idea to create it arose from Solidaridad’s work in Guatemala in support of local human rights groups seeking redress for victims of wartime atrocities: in 2004, the latter pointed out that the gap between civil society and policymakers in their country was leading to their proposals being constantly marginalised as controversial or ideological, and cited as contributory factors the lack of systematised, periodic and sustained information about the “behaviour” of impunity over time and the need to identify exactly which factors were obstructing or facilitating efforts to reduce impunity.

In response, the concept for Impunity Watch was developed and, in March 2005, presented for review in Geneva by  a group of Guatemalan NGOs and international experts, including Hina Jilani, the UN Special Representative on human rights defenders, Tom Koenigs, UN Special Representative for Afghanistan and Law Professor Diane Orentlicher, of American University who had just updated the UN Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity originally drafted by her predecessor, Louis Joinet. All agreed that Impunity Watch could be very useful to many post-conflict countries around the world and warmly supported the proposal to use the Principles as a guide.

Following this, Impunity Watch staff worked with Marcie Mersky, an expert in justice, development and peace issues (and now Impunity Watch's Board Chair) and Javier Ciurlizza (currently of the ICTJ) to develop a research instrument that would pinpoint the obstacles to impunity reduction in any given post-conflict situation. Following a review of the draft tool by Professor Todd Landman, an expert at Essex University in the establishment of indicators in human rights research, the Impunity Watch Research Instrument was finalised at a round table meeting held in May 2006, involving Ms Mersky and Mr Ciurlizza, and Professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Geoffrey Nice QC, Paul Seils, Professor Rachel Seider, Eva Reiter and Ana Miljanic.

Concurrently, a ‘project cycle’ was developed, envisaging implementation of the Research Instrument as a first step in an integrated set of activities for selected countries where impunity for conflict-era crimes was marked. Subsequent steps included consultative formulation of policy proposals in relation to the obstacles to impunity reduction identified through the research, strategic lobbying and advocacy of such proposals, and monitoring over time of progress towards achieving truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. Cross-cutting these activity fields, exchange, capacity-building and outreach activities were anticipated, with the aims of empowering civil society to combat impunity, encouraging state and non-state actors to work together and increasing awareness and prioritisation of impunity-related issues.

In addition to Guatemala, Serbia was selected as the second country in which to pilot this approach: the nature of its conflict, pattern of impunity, victim location and international position are very different from Guatemala’s, thus offering an opportunity for rigorous testing of the approach’s international relevance. A number of civil society organisations, each with a strong track record in combating impunity, were then selected in each country as project partners. Together with local Impunity Watch staff, they carried out complex research during 2007-8, culminating in the publication in December 2008 of comprehensive reports into the root causes of impunity (Recognising the Past: Challenges in the Combat of Impunity in Guatemala and Dealing with Impunity in Serbia - Options and Obstacles). 
 
Those reports also contained policy recommendations for combating impunity and its root causes, the result of consultations on the draft reports with a range of stakeholders in the governmental and non-governmental sectors. Those meetings also helped to promote the key role civil society has to play in tackling this problem, by alerting otherwise inaccessible and unresponsive decisionmakers to the scale and quality of their research and its findings, and encouraging channels of communication to open on a regular basis. They therefore created an excellent basis for advocacy of the recommendations produced, the subsequent project stage. It comprises an activity set designed to empower our partners to advocate the afore-mentioned policy proposals, including monitoring, lobbying, capacity-building and outreach, as well as further research. 

With the first part of the project cycle completed in the two pilot countries, Impunity Watch decided to expand its country-focused activities to the Great Lakes region of Africa. The scale of international criminal law violations and post-conflict impunity for them made this a clear priority. A feasibility study conducted during 2009 determined that Burundi was the best place to begin work in the troubled region, and in 2010, the programme there got underway.

With a presence in key regions on three continents, Impunity Watch strengthened its ability to analyse and compare different experiences of impunity and its combat, and provide input into efforts the world over to achieve accountability in post-conflict states. This has been an explicit goal from the outset, pursued through the facilitation of exchange between partners from diffierent countries and the development of a Perspectives Programme. Under its umbrella, concepts for three comparative projects have been developed, on the themes of: memorialisation of past crimes, impunity for conflict-era violence against women and the influence of entrenched interest groups on efforts to reduce impunity. The first two are now being implemented, with reference to a range of countries, while the third is under development.

A fourth aspect of this broader, comparative work was developed at the second Impunity Watch Partner Exchange Meeting, held in Belgrade in October 2009. It involves identifying, through comparative analysis of findings produced in both country-focused and Perspectives projects, those issues that are pertinent to broader international debates, and developing policy briefings that are targeted to particular actors involved in them. In this process, we also identify areas in which our partners in different countries can learn from one another, and facilitate exchange of lessons, experience and expertise.