A torture victim breaks down as he testifies before South Africa’s truth commission.
|
A
popular formula
The first
truth and reconciliation commission was set up in 1974 by the Ugandan dictator Idi
Amin under pressure from human rights groups and the international community. Not
surprisingly, his regime refused to make public the report or to implement any of
its recommendations.
Other truth commissions established in the 1980s fared better. Nunca más,
the report by Argentina’s commission to investigate disappearances under its military
dictatorship, became a national bestseller and led to the prosecution of several
generals. Spanish judge Balthasar Garzon used the Chilean Truth Commission (1990-91)
report as his primary information source in issuing an arrest warrant for dictator
Augusto Pinochet in October 1998. Guatemala’s Historical Clarification Commission
(1997-99) and South Africa’s much-publicized Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(1995-2000) have been lauded for helping citizens of those countries come to terms
with their traumatic pasts.
Truth commissions have recently been set up in Nigeria, Panama, East Timor and Sierra
Leone, while other countries, including Bosnia, Serbia, Mexico and Burundi are exploring
the option. Canada may establish one to investigate the treatment of its native peoples.
|
|
Truth
commissions can set in motion a process of grieving and recovery, but they are not
the only answer to confronting crimes of the past. Trials are critical, while traditional
healing practices can also assuage wounds
When nations go through
a transition from a repressive regime to a democracy, as many have in recent years,
a state and its people are often left with a legacy of violence, bitterness and pain.
Because it is not always possible to prosecute hundreds of perpetrators, many new
governments have turned to mechanisms outside the judicial system to confront the
horrific crimes of a prior regime.
More than 20 such commissions have been created over the past two decades, mostly
in Africa and Latin America (see box). As they are more widely used and studied,
it has become clear that they fill a very different role from judicial inquiries
and trials. They paint a larger picture, looking at many thousands of victims, whereas
trials (which are critically important as well) must, by definition, focus on specific
events of wrongdoing, and specific perpetrators. Truth commissions can be defined
as official, temporary mechanisms established to investigate a pattern of past human
rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law. As a transitional
tool, they are charged with investigating and reporting these abuses, and recommending
reforms in order to prevent further abuses in the future. In the process, they serve
to acknowledge formally past wrongs that were silenced and denied.
Perhaps the most controversial and publicised of these was the South African Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, set up in 1995. It is the only commission to date
which had the power to grant amnesty to individual perpetrators. The very public
nature of the hearings, with both victims and perpetrators testifying in front of
television cameras, resulted in the country as a whole reflecting on its history
and coming to a new understanding of the past.
To be granted amnesty, perpetrators were required to make a request in writing for
specific crimes, tell the full truth about the event, and prove that it was politically
motivated. Thus, it was not a full amnesty: if someone killed ten people and applied
for amnesty for only five, he or she could still be prosecuted for killing the other
five. Also, amnesty could be denied if it was found that the applicant did not tell
the full truth or that the crime was motivated out of personal spite or ill-will,
rather than for political reasons.
High expectations
Though the commission had a profound effect, it also shed light on the limitations
of such exercises. Often, the time allotted for the commission to complete its work
was too short, and it was impossible to verify and reach conclusions on the thousands
of cases presented. For many victims, it was painful to watch their perpetrators
walk free after admitting to heinous crimes. The expectations from the commission
were too great from the start. South Africa’s experience teaches us that we can’t
expect the truth process to resolve all issues pertaining to past conflict and abuse.
Reconciliation and recovery is a process that can take generations.
There is no one truth commission model. Countries respond to legacies of massive
political violence in different ways. Mozambique, for example, is right next to South
Africa, and its transition took place almost exactly at the same time. Yet here,
there was no interest in digging up the past: the victims and general public were
exhausted from the war and didn’t want to talk about it, while the political leadership
on both sides of the conflict were also uninterested in looking closely at the past.
Each nation must determine what span of time to consider, what acts or events to
investigate, and under what rules. The differences will range from whether a commission
chooses to hold public hearings, as in South Africa, or undertakes its investigations
behind closed doors.
Past experience shows that there are some basic requirements for judging whether
a commission’s exercise is likely to lead to credible results that fairly reflect
the concerns of all society. Truth commissions must have operational independence,
but at the same time, be given the necessary political and governmental support for
their work, often including direct financial support from the government.
We are likely to see stronger commissions in the future, as the lessons of past experiences
are incorporated into new and more inventive models. The new commission in East Timor,
for example, makes creative use of local customs to promote healing and reconciliation.
The commission has been set up, in part, to help facilitate the return of low-level
perpetrators who are still in West Timor. These include members of the militia who
were not responsible for killing, raping or organizing violence, but who might have
taken part in the burning or looting. It is believed that such persons would be safe
from acts of revenge once they have admitted to their crimes, apologized for them
and agreed to carry out a community service sentence. Likewise in Sierra Leone, the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is now being formed is likely to turn to
traditional and religious leaders to facilitate its work on a local level. Where
appropriate, it may facilitate such practices as cleansing ceremonies as a way of
recognizing and honouring past events. In Mozambique, traditional mechanisms were
in place that allowed people to process conflict and pain in their own way. When
combatants came home, for example, they often went through a healing ritual where
their past sins were seen to be washed away. It is important for a country to consider
the indigenous mechanisms that may be in place that can help it to counter a painful
past, with or without a complementary truth commission process.
This article
is based on an interview. |
