For them, the giant difference between the quantityof indictments and convictions was indicating an unduly mild therapy oftheir tormentors. Vice versa, former (and in addition latter) adherents of the GDR blamedthese trials as victor’s justice, as a result contesting the legitimacy of criminal justiceactions in opposition to perpetrators of political violence beneath communist rule. The mainquestion from a authorized and political factor of view is whether these accusations arecorrect. Legal scientists convincingly argue that it is unfair to speak of victor’sjustice, given the described outcome, which is more symbolic than draconian. Dong Lyoul Kim acknowledged: “in spite of everything, it have been the democratic forces of the GDR,which wanted to end the penal privilege of GDR-elites. On this connection speakingof victor’s justice seems to deny and play down the wrongs which took situation.” A common main issue within the attempts to care for crimes of previous dictatorships is thecontradiction between the customarily systemic nature of violence and the necessity of penallegislation in a liberal authorized framework to assess individual guilt in every case. This hasalready been a pivotal quandary within the trials towards Nazi perpetrators, which, rightfullyor now not, has resulted in universal accusations that the judges on this cases followedthe historical rule “little thieves are hanged, but quality ones get away. ” criminal justiceregarding human rights violations in the GDR has suffered equivalent reproaches,nevertheless, again legal students have good factors to reject this denunciation. Thetest circumstances have been the rigors involving border killings, which happened to be a classicalinstance of crook movements within a chain of command. Whilst the border guardswho really had shot the refugees frequently had been put on trial prior than theirsuperiors, the previous obtained—besides in instances of immoderate action—scale down sentencesthan their superiors. However, it’s also authentic, that the latter most of the time escaped theirpunishment seeing that of their age they were by and large regarded as no longer fit to facethe trial. From a legal factor of view, this may be viewed as a triumph of the rule of thumbof law, but now not all contemporaries were in a position to include this judgment. Altogether,the outcome of criminal justice involving political violence and human rights violationswithin the GDR was once in the direction of what we could anticipate from actuality commissions thanfrom criminal courts. So even when the perpetrators subsequently didn’t become in jail,the pains had been predominant for the clarification of tips and for the establishment ofcrimes, which of course, was once additionally foremost for the victims.A second facet of transitional justice contains actions aiming at rehabilitationand compensation of victims of political violence and human rights violationswithin the GDR. Even more than within the case of criminal justice, the old andlegal priority of compensation for Nazi victims used to be crucial. This trouble invariablyimplied a assessment between the two German dictatorships, and at the same time this hasbeen a topic of steady political battle, customarily the preeminence of theNazi dictatorship with recognize to variety and nice of crimes under no circumstances has been significantlydisputed. Therefore, all compensation laws in desire of SED victims,at the least in principle, kept each a fabric and symbolic distance to compensationfor Nazi victims, and associations of former political prisoners in the GDR have beenpractically struggling in vain for equivalence with Nazi victims, which they viewedforemost for their cognizance by the German society.