Acceptance of this premise is so widespread that in September 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared: “The debate is no longer between peace and justice, but between peace and the type of justice.”  Despite this link between lasting peace and justice, tensions can arise between the two during negotiations to end armed conflict. In an effort to circumvent this tension, some argue that peace must be secured before another process can be successfully conducted.  As one Ugandan diplomat put it: “It is obvious that you cannot operate until the patient`s condition is stabilized; The same goes for justice. The idea is that by postponing sticky questions of responsibility, tensions between peace and justice can be eased long enough to ensure peace. This is sometimes called sequencing. This position is often defended with the best of intentions, although it is also an argument that can and has been exploited by those with other, more selfish interests, even outside the context of peace talks. This policy paper aims to bridge the gap in the constitutional and peacebuilding literature with regard to descriptive and normative reports on the relationship between peace agreements and constitutional rules in political resolution processes. It examines the sequencing of peace and constitutional agreements to better understand when (and why) sequencing does not follow the logic model and implications of a coherent and viable constitutional framework. As with rebel groups in Ituri, May used violence as a means of imposing their control over the territory and gaining influence over negotiations. May fighters deliberately killed more than 40 local leaders and state officials in different locations and threatened others. When the government held peace talks with some of May`s leaders, May presented a list of demands, including military and other positions for its commanders. Some May leaders surrendered, were appointed colonels and majors in the national army and were never tried.
 Allowing military personnel to serve in the armed forces, accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious crimes, sends a very strong message to the rest of the military. The message is that impunity reigns and that brutality and power are first and foremost before the law. The slogan that peace comes first, and justice later, misunderstood the dynamics associated with it. Peace will not come, nor will justice, until the government and the international community take seriously the idea that those accused of heinous crimes must be immediately indicted. Giving a free prison card to people like Bosco Ntaganda, Innocent Zimulinda, Sultani Makenga, Bernard Byamungu and Salumu Mulenda, even if it is supposedly “only for a few years”, only serves to taunt human rights. No sophisticated strategic rationalization should be allowed to mask this fact.  Although the judicial provisions were welcomed by local human rights organizations at the time, their importance quickly became the subject of controversy. . . .