Highpoints of Truth Commissions

They are capable of contributing to the acknowledgement of two substantial issues
- the institutional setting up of the country in which they are set up can not deal with the issues concerning human rights violations, so they have to create a body, separate of them, to tackle this concern.
- the existence of a commission and the outcoming report brings about a public acknowledgement of what has been known all along by victims and perpetrators, and which has been ignored or denied by a big part of society
Whilst they are working they are set up to establish an accurate record of a country's past, clarify uncertain events and lift the lid of silence and denial of a painful period of history.
It is said that they respond to the needs and interests of victims. As you might know, much of their time and attention is focused on victims. Story telling becomes a very important and a substantial part of the task a commission has been requested. This as regards the input given by victims and also of perpetrators. But it would be naïve to think that it is so. Most of the times nor victims nor their organisations are consulted on how to set these commissions, less during their process, beyond being witnesses. What has happened to them is in the political agenda. It empowers the government in power and disempowers the previous one and the suffering becomes a 'negotiable' issue.
By uncovering what happened, a PROCESS of dealing with the past is triggered and it becomes essential that grassroot groups as well as NGOS and state institutions deal with it so as to project it into the future and help in the task of prevention of future violations.
The actual stating of facts avoids the extended use of euphemisms, so a crime becomes a crime and not an abuse, torture is torture and not inadequate and innecessary use of force, etc.
The existence of the commission and its subsequent report makes the topic which was previously a topic of victims versus perpetrators, a topic of society as a whole. The ones who do not belong to any of the 2 named ones, have to take part of the discussion and take responsibility for what they ignored and did not do.
During and after this process there is a strong need of rebuilding the social net and here active dialog and participation of individuals and social actors becomes relevant.
In the context of what is happening all over the world, the setting up of these commissions after a war or dictatorship, becomes a matter of aesthetics, it looks right to set them up and give them the importance they have in the context of a country as well as internaionally.
In the field of moral behaviour, they challenge the need of determining what is and what is not negotiable and balance, as far as possible, the ethical dilemmas versus the political constrictions.
A few commissions have contributed to justice and accountability. Others have put forward the need to link them with processes of justice, which is a basic demand of the victims.
The commissions are supposed to make recommendations to overcome the problems of the past. Amongst them: design a reparation program, propose programs regarding prevention of future abuses, describe the circumstances that made events happen, etc.
They are very well positioned to outline institutional responsibility and recommend reforms, that means they have an evaluative and prescriptive task as they can base their conclusions and recommendations on a close study of the record, while standing as and independents institution separate from the systems under review.
In many cases they have been thought capable of promoting reconciliation and reduce tensions resulting from past violence.
They have contributed to give victims, survivors and society as a whole, the right to truth, as confirmed in international law.

Prepared for Croatia by Roberta Bacic (WRI)
June 2001; updated September 2002