I have work with the Liberia TRC in Liberia as a Freelance statement taker and did the Liberia TRC radio program called Talking Truth.

Commissioner Massa A. Washington, who is the head of the Outreach department of the TRC, desized the TRC radio program.

Talking Truth is aired on Radio Verities twice a week to educate Liberian all the need to know about the TRC and talk about what they feel about the Liberia TRC and what can be done at the TRC.

Wanted to know their views about the Liberia TRC.

I got to know that it was not everybody in Liberia that knew about the TRC and its works.

What I know about TRC is this, A truth commission or truth and reconciliation commission is a commission tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government, in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past.

They are, under various names, occasionally set up by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil war, or dictatorship. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established by President Nelson Mandela after apartheid, is generally considered a model of Truth Commissions, rarely if ever achieved in other parts.

As government reports, they can provide proof against historical revisionism of state terrorism and other crimes and human rights abuses.

Truth commissions are sometimes criticized for allowing crimes to go unpunished, and creating impunity for serious human rights abusers.

Since 1973, more than 20 Truth commissions have been established around the world, with the majority (15) created between 1974-1994.

Some were created by international organizations like the United Nations (UN), a few by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the majority by the national governments of the countries in question.

In Africa the TRC was set up in these countries. Rwanda (1993)  (1976). In South Africa,  (1992 and 1993) South African Commission of Truth and Reconciliation was established by South Africa’s post-Apartheid parliament in 1995, the Commission’s report was issued in October 1998. Zimbabwe (1985), Chad (1991-1992), Nigeria (1999), Sierra Leone (called for in 1999, still underway), Uganda (1974 and 1986-1995), Ethiopia (1993-2000), Morocco (2004). Liberia (2005).

I tryed looking at all these TRC created before and what can the Liberia TRC learn from their mistakes and try to do the best for their own TRC.

The one I focused  on was the one very close to Liberia. The TRC in Sierra Leone.

What can be learned from Sierra Leone TRC?

What are their challenges and mistakes that we can learn from them?

I was not a member of the TRC, I was just a radio producer and freelance statement taker but there was so many things that I learnt from this TRC that was so challenging for my work and learning from other TRCs in Africa.

I hope Kenya will really look at these things before they set of their own TRC.In Liberia, 2005, launched in 2006. The Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is a Parliament-enacted organization created in May 2005 in order to investigate and report on gross human rights violations that occurred in Liberia between January 1979 and 14 October 2003.

The Liberia TRC was established along similar lines to South Africa's post-apartheid body. 

Is it the same way the Liberia TRC will go as the way South Africa TRC went?

What was the aims of the South Africa TRC?

Did they achieved their aims?

What did they achieve?

There are so many challenges at all TRCs I have read about in Africa.

Let us talk about the, Problem of Justice: For many, the proper response to the perpetrators of human rights abuses, violence, ethnic cleansing, or genocide, must be criminal proceedings by some sort of tribunal, a court of law (international law, perhaps) duly authorized to render judicial dispositions: to establish justifiable facts of the matter, to render verdicts and, if called for, to punish.

But truth commissions (including the more ambitious truth and reconciliation commissions) cannot by their nature deliver this sort of justice.

Can TRC achieve Justice?

Can one achieve justice and peace in Liberia if all one can think about is one's own pain and insecurity?

How Best to Achieve Justice after conflicts in Africa? Kenya has to look into all these things when it comes to setting up TRC in Kenya.

The next thing is the Problem of Truth, In the Liberia TRC when it comes to “truth” in relation to justice, how many concerned Liberian that knows about the war in Liberian and have work up to the commission to tell the whole truth the know about how the war started?

They are waiting for the TRC commissioners to write a letter to invite them.

Or they will say they have been ask for forgives to those who they have wrong.

In the first place a the launching of the Liberia TRC in June 22 2006, Liberia President Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf will have been the first person to come up to the TRC to tell the whole Liberians what she knows about the war.

That will allow the TRC and the Liberians to know the Primary actors and the Secondary actors of our war in Liberia.

That will have allow the rest of the people who where part of the war in Liberia come to the TRC to talk about the TRUTH about the war.

The issue of the complexity and multiplicity of truth is a central one linking the problematic demands of justice and the hopes for reconciliation.

South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the narrative or personal truths, emerging especially through victims and perpetrators was a very good one and allowing Nelson Mandela coming up to be the first person talking at the South Africa TRC.

In Liberia the Chairman of the TRC Cllr. Jerome Verdier is a strong and hard working and youngest ever Chairman of the TRC with all the Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in Liberia and with the International bodies not fully supporting the TRC.

Without him and his able commissioner the TRC will have not been where it is right now.  If the TRc is set up in Kenya all the Internatioanl Bodies will put all monies in the Bank for  the TRC before the work starts. peopel of Kenya should not allow any Internatioanl bodies to just promise as it happen in Liberia TRC.

So If the Kenya TRC will have to look at all these things. When it comes to the Problem of Reconciliation, In Liberia will we be able to reconcile after the TRC?

Almost everybody wants the special court in Liberia.

If the court is been built in Liberia,

Will there be justice after the TRC finish their work?

How can we solve the problem of justice in Liberia?

Have we as Liberians sat down to distinguishing between retributive from restorative forms?

In South Africa Desmond Tutu says, the restorative justice reflects a fundamental and venerable African value of healing and nurturing social relationships at the expense of exacting vengeance, of nothing less than a quality of humane sociality.

How can we bring reconciliation and forgiveness in Liberia?

In Liberia the whole question of reconciliation and forgiveness remains so changelleging, raising many more questions in my life so far working with the Liberia TRC and reading a lot about other TRCs.

When it comes the Problem of Democratization. In Liberia, and other truth and reconciliation commissions are usually established by transitional governments coming to power in place of repressive regimes and after periods of widespread violence, state terror, or ethnic conflict.

This is how their work is identified with “transitional justice”.

I have asked so many friends of mine that know and have worked with TRC in other countries. Transition is one to democracy and the rule of law, and according to my friend Pricilla Hayner, when I ask her one-day in Liberia. Is the rule of law working in Liberia?

Will it ever work in Liberia?

How many Liberians know how they rule of law works in Liberia? It is a diificult question to answer.

Liberians should face their need for post-war adjustment and reconciliation with courage and reason, not finger pointing.

They should stop behaving as critics of the first resort, ready to waste all their dry powder on a shortsighted attempt to stall the work of the TRC by comparing President Sirleaf to Senator Prince Johnson.

The TRC is a healthy born infant of the Liberian peace process. The "real work" is reconciliation. Finger pointing without strong evidence is a diversion that leads to false expectations and no reconciliation.

The Liberia TRC has certainly brightened my life and the lives of other victims and perpetrators. I have aired their stories. I hope truth seeking, justice and reconcilation will all work hand in hand to get  perfect peace in Liberia.

How I am going to start an Oral History documenting stories by audio/video documentation of the war in Liberia. I want Liberians to know the root causes of the war, to know the primary actors and the secondary actors. I hope the people of Kenya will learn from all the TRCs set up in Africa and do the best for their country to have peace. In setting up TRC in Kenya, Kenya should not be in a rush. The people of Kenya will have look at TRC in different ways to get a better way to have long lasting peace in Kenya.   

Agnes M.F. Kamara-Umunna

Radio Producer/Pres

Base on my experience with the work of the TRC in Sierra Leone, not every body knew about its establishment and more specifically its mandate. However to address this issue, a  working group was established, whose mandate was to raise awareness in small comunities all over the country about the establishment of the TRC and its role in the process of reconciliation

Furthermore, it can be very difficult to get witnesses to testify before the Commission for various reasons like, safety concerns, and also the risk of retraumatization. These are some of the reasons why most people in Sierra Leone did not want to perticipate .

In my openion, if Kenya establish a working group whose mandate  focuses only on raising awareness about the work of the TRC in the country, that will help greatly, and also before witnesses are called to testify, there safety concerns most be addressed and most importantly, the Commission should consider the risk of retraumatization and establish a support mechanism to address any potential brake down during testimony.

 

Jean Rodenbough

Greensboro, NC

This week marks the beginning of Greensboro's Bicentenniel observance, and allows opportunities for our Truth & Reconciliation Task Force to contribute stories and participate in activities tied to the city's celebration.

We are, according to Alex Borraine, the only T&R Commission so far to have been initiated and developed by the people of Greensboro rather than by the local government (with the guidance of the ICTJ). Our follow-up Task Force is now working in various ways to promote and carry out recommendations of the Commission's Report.

The resulting issues we face in common with others have to do with reconciliation and also the act of forgiveness. I have just read an article by Donald and Peggy Shriver, who have been to Northern Ireland. They address the matter of forgiveness and apology within political contexts, and with healing the memories of groups involved in past events. They note that "reconciliation will require a 'march through the institutions' -- all of them." I believe this kind of approach holds true universally, and the value of symbols is one stressed in the article. What are symbols that participants identify with in order to locate their perspectives, and to have these seen and recognized by others? Museums certainly provide one way to do so, as those of us who were in South Africa last November discovered. Monuments and books might provide other means. Films, documentaries, and the like are certainly ways to provide concrete perspectives, as would poetry, visual arts, music and drama.

We here in Greensboro have an exceptionally open opportunity to work in all such areas as part of remembering the history of this place. There will be much made of the usual patriotic landmarks, because two wars in effect were ended decisively here: the last major battle of our Revolution was fought here, and the last meeting of the Confederate Cabinet in 1865 took place here. We have a unique opportunity now to bring into focus subsequent struggles of race and economics that continue to polarize us, but at this time in a context that has the potential to develop new symbols and new understandings that can lead to some degree of reconciliation. If we cannot achieve that then we need to draw upon the experiences of other truth and reconciliation efforts across the world. Surely it is possible for people living in the larger community anywhere to find paths for acknowledging the truth of their history and finding forgiveness and reconciliation.

 

I'm interested to hear from folks who have been involved in other T&R processes about how their respective communities have managed to carry on the work of T&R after the commission has closed its doors and finished its work.

A little context to my question: the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission was seated from 2004-2006. We're now in the "Post-Commission" phase and the Greensboro Truth and Community Reconciliation Project (the group that gave the commission its mandate and formed a selection panel to identify the commissioners) seeks to continue this work, using the Truth and Reconciliation Process as a tool. This is clearly a new and different challenge than the pre-commission phase and the commission itself. For many the T&R Commission provided a concrete goal, something achievable. However, the initiators of the process here in Greensboro have seen the T&R Commission as a tool in a larger struggle for social, economic and racial justice.

So, in this transition from concrete activity to a more expansive movement for social change, how do we build on the effort and energy toward and during the Commission? In your community, how did you make the case for the need for continued work? How did you overcome the fatigue and trauma that survivors, supporters, allies, and the general public experience after having gone through the Commission process?

 Neneh Binta Barrie I really believe in the working groups.

In Liberia the working groups was established but not effective in their work with the Liberia TRC. There was no money to implement the plans of the working groups. 

So if Kenya is going to have a working group the TRC will have to work along with the working group. There must be a budget for the working group  to work with.There must be a great awareness out reach about the TRC in Kenya. In communities, villages, towns,schools,univeristies, in the government system. In every conner in Kenya so that everybody will know the work of the TRC.

It can be difficult to get witnesses to testify before the commission for their own reasons, that I really know. That  is another way for the working group to have ways to  talk about these issues. Before Kenya establish the working group they have to look at diffirent issues about the challenges of the TRC and the working group. Sometiimes there is no money to do the work as it happen in Liberia.  Kenya should not allow this to happen. TRC is not anything  to rush. For  Kenya to have a good out come of thier TRC they really need to do a lot of research on so many  other TRC  in Africa.

 Agnes M.F. Kamara-Umunna

Radio Producer/Pres

Ahmed K. Sirleaf I would say that Kenya has to be cautious. While in transitional justice (TJ),as we have seen, post conflict socities tend to learn from and build upon what others have done, or are doing,which is how it should be generally, it is very imperative however for any TJ mechanism, especially a truth commission process to be designed to meet the specific needs and contexts of that society.

So for example, Kenya should look at its history. The history of its conflict, as well as its ethnic compositions and the political moment to decide as to whether in fact, a truth commission is what's needed at this time. Perhaps, a commission of inquiry is what's needed. Perhaps there are other Kenyan values-based traditional adjudication or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are what's needed.

That said, Kenya has a lot to learn from the South African, Sierra Leonean, and Liberian processes. Someone already mentioned community education, outreach and sensitization. Those are key. a truth commission ought to be a people's process and a victim centered process.

Political will and leadership are essential as well. Kenyan political leaders could take their cues from the Mandelas and Tutus of South Africa. Kenya could also learn from Liberian Diaspora model to involve the Kenyan Diaspora. Usually, it is Diaspora folks that hold the necessary sway.

I did a radio program in Liberia called STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART. I started doing this before the Liberia TRC was launched base on my experience with the Victims and Perpetrators. They did not know about the TRC, but both Victims and Perpetrators came on STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART to talk about what had happen to them during the  war. I told them I was not going to pay for any story.  They came in their numbers to get their parties talk about their trauma they have gone through during the war. That was in 2004 and the TRC was launched in 2006. That means I was doing a TRC on the radio but not bringing the Justice part of it. When they TRC was now launched, the TRC commissioner were now coming on the radio to talk about the TRC on my STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART. These were they type of stories that will  come to the TRC.  I know  it can be very difficult to get witnesses to testify before the Commission for various reasons . They believe that there was a lot of money at the TRC so they wanted the TRC to pay for their stories.  In Kenya there must be a good ways for letting the people of Kenya know that they should not have to get paid for their stories.  Do not rush with the TRC in Kenya if that is the best way for Kenya. Will the TRC bring lasting peace? Is the TRC what the people of Kenya wants?

How will it help Kenya to recover form the trauman? There are so many leasons to learn form other TRCs in Africa.

 Agnes M.F. Kamara-Umunna

Radio Producer/Pres

Ahmed K. Sirleaf Another question that is often raised is the morality or legitimacy of truth commissions. This question is also arguably tied into the question of truth seeking, truth telling and versions of truths.

Given the kind of crimes/violations these bodies address, or at least are meant to address, are they morally justifiable? Should post conflict societies pay more attention to the exploration of other conduits of holding alleged perpetrators accountable, addressing impunity and therby providing justice? What's justice in a post conflict society context anyway?

What do the notions of accountability, justice, truth telling and/or healing through truth seeking mean to you all?

This is certainly a thought-provoking question, Ahmed. Thanks for bringing it up.

Should communities that find themselves in the post-conflict situation of needing to find a way to heal look towards the pursuit of justice and accountability, or the pursuit of reconcilation and forgiveness? It is a very difficult and complicated dilemma. I came to truly understand its complexity after speaking with survivors of the Lords Resistence Army in Uganda - some wanting reconciliation in order to heal and move on, and others wanting nothing short of punishment for the perpetrators. Both options alone have their price. Reconcilation may define the perpetrators' responsibility, but denies the victims their desire for accountability and fairness. Whereas, a quest for justice could take years, and the criminals could fill so many jails, that the suffering will never end. But are the survivors of the LRA limited to these two options? I believe the solution will be a combination of many activities (and tactics).

As I'm sure you can tell, I can appreciate the desire to justify or criticize these processes, and compare them to other justice-seeking practices.  But I would suggest that we think of the creation of Truth and Reconciliation processes as a tactic to be used in addition to a number of tactics for the overall goal of healing communities.  Therefore it would be wise for us to focus on how to strengthen its effectiveness.  I would be interested in hearing what others think are the weakness and strengths of Truth and Reconciliation processes.  Furthermore, I am interested to hear what the biggest challenges were in implementing this process.

I believe that it is important to assist the community in healing by the means it has deemed most appropriate. Creating a Truth and Reconciliation process is just one of many of these tactics, and a very powerful one indeed! 

Kristin Antin - New Tactics

The TRC in Peru defined the concept of truth, this framework our work. Share our definitions:

"Truth" is a story ethically articulated. This is his first major dimension. The TRC is, as has been said, on human events in which they are involved will, intentions and the affections of actors, ie deals with moral facts. But it does, in addition, since the framework of ethical principles that have presided over its mission from its commitment to human rights, democratic values, justice, solidarity and honesty in the conduct of its investigations. The articulation ethics of the story is thus both its contents and its form: its content, to the extent that the TRC has interpreted the Developments in the light of the ethical principles identified; his way, in so far as it has pursued, also for ethical reasons, transparency in all aspects of the investigation. And by the same moral reasoning has deemed essential to take into account the other dimensions of the concept of truth.

"Truth" is a story scientifically supported. Many of the investigations carried out by the TRC had intended to establish a detailed and accurate record of the acts of violence, the conditions in which they occurred, its direct participants and the legacy they left behind. In all these cases, the TRC appealed to experts and the scientific and technical methods more updated, in order to ensure the greatest possible objectivity: reports criminological, judicial expertise, forensic anthropology, laboratory analysis, and so on. But this scientific dimension has been present equally in the work of analysis and interpretation of the causes of the incident, then requested the assistance of a wide range of scientists from different disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, history and psychology -

And the methodologies available, it has helped to clarify the process in question. It has thus taken a scientific background to the story ethically articulated.

"Truth" is a story contrasted intersubjetivamente. For the establishment of a truth practice, as understood in this report, it was necessary to clearly hear and process the voices of all participants. The TRC has placed special emphasis on this aspect of the truth, and therefore has focused its work on the organization of public hearings throughout the country. For ethical reasons strictly, it has been privileged testimony from the victims of violence, compared to which the whole country owes a debt of justice and solidarity. Additionally, we have arranged with the direct and indirect participants in those events-military members of subversive groups, political and opinion leaders, For the purpose of receiving testimony from everyone and hear their versions of what happened.

Finally, the TRC has publicly called on all Peruvians to provide its contribution to the clarification of the process-what actually has happened in many ways. As part of its ethical conception of things, and with the scientific support due, the TRC has verified and evaluated the participation and the version of the different actors involved. The resulting story is why "target" in the sense that it is based on a synthesis consistent and consistent between the experiences of various actors and the various sources, namely, has an objectivity always open to new contrastaciones intersubjective.

"Truth" is a story tacking thread narrative terms. The exhibition of the results of our investigation once contrasting testimony and analysis, leads the form of a coherent story in which events are linked with each other. The violent events, for more crude as they are, do not speak for themselves; the TRC interpreted in the light of the various dimensions referred to that charge its meaning. The story offered intended, as called for in the decree, establishing the facts in the context of social and historical processes to explain them properly. Thus, the story is the claim not only to register events, but also to explain their causes immediate and remote causes. It also, as far as possible, what has gone responsibilities, immediate and mediate the process of deterioration in our social life. Having paid special attention to the voices of the victims, and having collected the testimonies of many Peruvian and Peruvian eager to contribute to the reconstruction of our nation, the TRC hoped to be proposing a novel way of narrating our collective memory. In recommending equally institutional reforms as a corollary to the report, the TRC hoped to help "maintain peace and harmony among Peruvians'.

"Truth" is a story emotionally concerned. The facts before us are the work of human wills, and because they have caused pain and suffering of so many compatriots, the story that exposes must take into account the emotional dimension to them lies. And it must take into account not only because it is present in the actions and intentions that are the subject of our research, but also because the researchers and recipients of this story we also we open to understanding through our affections. The truth of which we speak is, therefore, while moral and emotional.

"Truth" is a story perfectible. The story of the TRC deals with events in the history of Peru and social processes associated with a memory conflicting and fragmented. We propose a narrative that retrieving our memory as a country, it is projected into the future, and should therefore be continued and enriched with the participation of civil society, the State and the agencies to be created to monitor compliance with the recommendations Report. The important thing is that the story itself contains the criteria for its continued development, we believe that there will be a place for him always welcome new testimonies of victims still unknown, as well as new perspectives for analysis or criticism that contribute to its continued rewriting.

For the articulation above of the different dimensions of the concept of truth adhered to, the TRC hoped that theirs will be a credible story. It is not only in the sense of fidelity to the facts, but mainly in the sense of being credible, credible to all Peruvians and Peruvian. The TRC hopes that the entire nation is in him a sense of what happened, and to be recognized both in the explanation of the causes on proposals for fundamental changes in our social ties.

Sofia Macher

Sofía, I agree with much of what you have to say and I think that the work of the Peruvian TRC was admirable.  My only criticism is your end result: 9 heavy volumes! I wonder how many Peruvians actually read them and thus had access to the truth the commission uncovered.  I know I still haven't made it through all of them :( (but I'm not Peruvian).

 While the Argentine CONADEP was not a TRC per se (and the fact that it did not deal with the victims of summary execution or of political imprisonment and only dealt briefly with the causes of the repression, meant that Argentines do not have a whole story of what took place) - it made the right decision in coming up with a report that was concise (only one volume), well organized and well written.  This has meant that the report has been widely read, both by its contemporaries and new generations, so that there is now in Argentina an accepted (in most circles) collective truth as to what happened vis a vis the disappearances. 

I wish that future truth commissions would take the usability of their product into account and at least publish a well-written tome summarizing their findings in addition to any multi-volume report.

 But please, don't let my comment take away from the amazing work you guys are responsible for - including helping create a social context in which justice begins to be possible.

 Truth may be only one of the many elements in the pursuit of healing and reconciliation but its importance cannot be underestimated. For example, The creation a TRC in Sierra Leone, South Africa, Chile, Guatemala and the Commssion of Inquiry in Uganda was prompted by the fact that ignoring history leads to collective amnesia, which is unhealthy for the body politic. An unresolved past will inevitably return to haunt citizens. It is only by publicly and collectively acknowledging the horror of past human rights violations is it possible for a country to establish the rule of law and the culture of human rights.

Growing  interest in truth commissions has produced little agreement as to their long term impact on a community’s democratic transition, post-conflict peacebuilding operations as well as political and social development. Although most argue they are beneficial, a growing chorus of critics see truth commissions as either ineffectual or dangerous. Despite these developments, it is unclear precisely what effect truth commissions have on transitional societies. Although the range of hypothesized effects has been wide ranging, one of the more common claims is that truth commissions contribute to a better human rights environment in the future. For many, of central import to a truth commission’s mission is to help advance the practice of protecting human rights. The expressed intent of most truth commissions is to lessen the likelihood of human rights atrocities reoccurring in the future. The commission’s work sheds light on past abuses and seeks to end the pattern of impunity. While they do not have prosecutorial power to punish those responsible for past crimes, commissions are designed to reveal how past violations of human rights were carried out. Although truth commissions may provide some accountability for the past, investigations are also intended to generate reforms to prevent a repetition of such behavior in the future.

For a community that has endured violence and conflict to come to terms with its past and to turn to its future, it is essential that the problem of impunity be addressed and the truth of the past be established to would serve as a national catharsis.  that will finally result in the establishment of the rule of law and a culture of human rights. The past therefore, should not be abandoned, because a people who do not preserve their memory are a people who have forfeited their history. There can be no reconciliation if people refuse to accept that something was wrong and if there is no acknowledgement of the suffering it has undergone or of the ultimate responsibility for that suffering. The victimized population is often clear about what abuses took place and who carry them out. It should be acknowledged that the importance of truth commissions might be described more accurately as acknowledging the truth rather than finding the truth. The victims must feel that their suffering has been recognised and acknowledged. Perpetrators or beneficiaries of the oppression must also recognise that harm was done and that they benefited from it or were responsible for it. Victims and perpetrators must finally come to a common understanding of the country’s history; reconcile their stories as a basis on which to build a future, what Anjie Krog referred to as justice in it deepest sense. This is especially important in a situation where after a war, neither side has emerged victors and at the end of the coflict there has been no cahnge in government.

   In addressing the problem of impunity to intiate true healing and reconciliatiaon, the TRC should take into acount these two measures:

•  Naming of names of individual perpetrators: This is one way to provide some measures of individual accountability for past violations. This is a powerful instrument at truth commission’s disposal. It addresses the need for full disclosure, justice and even revengeful desire to strip the perpetrator of his normal façade and prosperous future in the aftermath of gross human rights violations. While public identification is neither a criminal sanction nor a civil one, it can have negative effects on the reputation, career and political prospects of individuals.The individual naming of perpetrators and the exposure of their violations constituted punishment through public stigma, shaming, and humiliation. while taking this measure however, the TRC should be caution in making sure that the naming of individual perpetrators does not threaten the establishment of peace and reconciliation or even a new regime and rule of law.

• An amnesty that permits prosecution to be foregone must not be allowed for complete impunity. In response to those who claim that the past should be left behind once a conflict is over, the victims of such acts should insist more and more that there can be no justice and no healing of society unless the truth is told, and unless violators are held accountable or confess their guilt and ask for forgiveness and give concrete sign of repentance. A concrete example for failed reconciliation and healing to come forth in a community where amnesty prevented accountability is the granting of blanket amnesty to the Rhodesian (post-colonial Zimbabwe) police and military personnel for human rights violations. Victims and survivors were not consulted, but rather watched powerlessly as many perpetrators of human rights violations went unpunished and even took on key roles within the Zimbabwean Army and secret services. As a consequence the need to forgive and forget was not internalized by the general public. Reconciliation and healing processes are ineffective as long as the vicious circle of impunity is not broken. The nasty reality is that in most post-conflict societies gross atrocities go unpunished, unacknowledged and without redress.

 As Predro Nikken once stated; 'There is no doubt that the discovery of the Truth, which is the responsibility of independent persons, destroys that element which, while not useful in itself for eradicating impunity, fulfils at least a dual function. First, it is useful for society to learn, objectively, what happened in its midst, which translates into a sort of collective catharsis. And second, it contributes to creating a collective conscience as to the need to impede the repetition of similar acts and shows those who are capable of doing so that even if they may escape the action of justice, they are not immune from being publicly recognized as the persons responsible for very grave attacks against other human rights. In this regard, even though truth commissions do not constitute punitive mechanisms, they may perform a preventive function that is highly useful in a process of building peace and the transition to democracy.'

 By investiagting and establishing the truth about human rights humanitarian law violations truth commssions fulfill the obligation imposed on state by international human rights law to investiaget and punish gross violations of human rights.

The effectiveness of a truth commssion in aiding heling and reconciliation depends on its mandates and how effectively, it can carry out those mandate. Effectiveness is however almost impossible to measure! - Florence

It is clear that every victim would want their perpetrators to be punished; however in a situation where there were massive human rights violations, it would be difficult to punish all the perpetrators. This is why I think the TRC process is legitimate and significant to the rehabilitation process.  In Sierra Leone, the TRC played a significant role in the rehabilitation process. For instance, some victims expressed how relief and powerful they felt after facing their perpetrators, especially when their perpetrators showed remorse of their behavior. Similarly so, telling the truth is very significant to the healing and rehabilitation process regardless of the fact that most Africans believe in forgiveness, it is important to understand that there will be no forgiveness and reconciliation if the truth is uncovered.  For example, the process of bringing both the victims and perpetrators to tell their stories contributed greatly to the rehabilitation process in Sierra Leone. Even though the mandate of the TRC is not to punish the perpetrators, but the fact that there is a mechanism or space for victims and perpetrators to face each other and talk about their experience, can be considered a leading path to justice.Neneh Barrie Sierra Leone 

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission was, amongs others, an attempt to document the country's Apartherid history and facilitate reconciliation in a divided society. It is important to rememeber that the Commission's mandate was not to achieve reconciliation but as one ot the instruments established during the transition from oppressive apartheid rule to democracy, to promote reconciliation. Other societies have dealt  with their iniquitous past in different ways, some more successfiully than others. The Commission depended on the stories, narratives of both victims and perpertrators. These stories depended on memory.

Human memory is never a collection of fixed, stored data that can be downloaded or accumulated for later use. There are many factors that impact on memory. Social conditions determine what is rememered and how events are recalled. Some thinkers have said that memory is not the same as history and memorialising is different  from writing history. Understanding this we are able to distinguish between truth and untruth(lies).

If memory is difficult to unpack or understand, so too is truth.  The South African Truth Commission referred to several 'truths' in its seven volume report. Firstly, personal truth which refers to the personal, individual story with the person's own interpretation of events. In this aspect of truth memory plays an important role. The second is factual or forensic truth. Thirdly, social or dialogical truth which is the context within which the personal or narrative truth is understood. Fourthly, a restorative or healing truth. The truth which the Commision had to acquire was to contribute to the healing of the nation  and the restoration of the dignity of those who suffered injustice in the past.

While I think it is important to bear in mind that Truth Commissions are not only an attempt to document, remember, uncover the truth, it is also an opportunity to restore the lost dignity of everyone involved in the conflict. The processes and procedures adopted by the commission should be such that particularly the victims feel dignified by the process and that the humanity of perpertrators is restored.

 

Following up on a number of comments in this very useful discussion, I would endorse the general view that the value of truth commissions is that they are created, not with the presumption that there will be no trials, but to constitute a step towards knowing the truth and, ultimately, making justice prevail. Nevertheless, the institution of a truth commission should not be accepted as a substitute for the state's obligations, which cannot be delegated, to investigate violations committed within its jurisdiction, and to identify those responsible, punish them if necessary, and ensure adequate compensation for the victim.

The tension between aspirations for retributive justice for victims of oppression and the practical need for amnesties as a step towards reconciliation needs to be addressed at the outset of reconiliation and truth recovery processes. Drumbl has described this transition:

“Post conflict justice is terribly and terrifically complex.  There are no simple solutions. Research suggests that lasting social order in societies roiled by internecine conflict is restored by a ‘forgiveness process’ characterised by truth telling, redefinition of the identity of the former belligerents, partial justice and a call for a new relationship.”   

In addressing this tension, the objectives of political reconciliation should, in certain circumstances, as Tom Hadden as argued, be prioritised over punishment for past human rights violations, particularly for those perpetrators not in leadership positions and that any arrangements for amnesties, early prisoner releases or truth recovery processes should be transparent and subject to independent approval or international scrutiny.

I would argue that this utilitarian approach should be adopted and that through this non-prescriptive method of addressing accountability, human rights organisations can make an important and necessary contribution to the pursuit of a sustainable peace.

These pragmatic political considerations need to be included in peacebuilding activities and that resolving the underlying political or ethnic causes is key to ending conflicts.

The experience of Northern Ireland and the use of multiple strategies involving legal and political processes are noteworthy in this respect.  As well as entrenching the rule of law by providing human rights and equality guarantees and reforming key institutions such as the police, other 'political' options were developed in Northern Ireland such as the granting of early prisoner release schemes as a way of facilitating the peace process that extended the boundaries of a strict rule of law approach.

 

For more information on how Northern Ireland is facing up to the challenges of dealing with the legacy of its conflict, see the current issue of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's magazine on this link http://www.nihrc.org/dms/data/NIHRC/attachments/dd/files/71/NIHRC_Review_Issue_6_Feb_08.pdf

 

 

Neneh Barrie, I really understand what you are saying, I quote you,

"It is clear that every victim would want their perpetrators to be punished; however in a situation where there were massive human rights violations, it would be difficult to punish all the perpetrators."

What is the meaning of Justice to Victims?

Crime hurts, physically, financially, and psychologically for weeks, months and even years after the crime occurs. Now this victims leave in the same communities, with their perpetrators. Their perpetrators are in the government in this country they have been hurt.(Like in Liberia)

There must be a place set up after TRC to helps victims cope with trauma and grief, ensures their rights are not ignored within the judicial system, advocates for change that will make a balanced justice system, and implements community programs for violence prevention. In Liberia what is happening, Former president Charles Taylor, is in Hauge  and see the amount of money that is just going to his court case. If they can take half of that money and just put it for the victims it will be good. How long will  it take to get justice  victims in Sierra Leone? There must be fast way to respond to the victims need.

Restorative justice is one way to respond to a criminal act. Restorative justice puts the emphasis on the wrong done to a person as well as on the wrong done to the community. It recognizes that crime is both a violation of relationships between specific people and an offence against everyone the state.

Restorative justice programs involve the voluntary participation of the victim of the crime and the offender and ideally members of the community, in discussions. The goal is to "restore" the relationship, fix the damage that has been done and prevent further crimes from occurring.

Restorative justice requires wrongdoers to recognize the harm they have caused, to accept responsibility for their actions and to be actively involved in improving the situation. Wrongdoers must make reparation to victims, themselves and the community. In Liberia, Prince Johnson is a wrongdoer and is in the government of Liberia. Is that justice? Allowing him to work in the same country he as commited  human rights abuses.

I really hate Prince Johnson in the government of Liberia.

There are so many tensions between Victims and Perpetrators in Liberia. Prince Yormie (or Yeomi) Johnson is a Liberian political and former military figure. He was elected to serve as a senator in the Liberian congress in the historic 2005 election. Johnson was born in Nimba County, in the east-central interior of the country. In 1990, Johnson was allied with Charles Taylor as part of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), which crossed the border from Côte d'Ivoire and began operations in Liberia on Christmas Eve, 1989. However, an internal power struggle resulted in Prince Johnson leading a faction of fighters which he named the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL). In spite of ECOMOG opposition, INPFL forces captured most of the capital, Monrovia, late in the summer of 1990, and Johnson's supporters abducted President Samuel Doe at ECOMOG headquarters, the Free Port of Liberia. Although Johnson has recently denied killing Doe, there is no question that Doe was brutally executed in Johnson's custody on September 9, 1990, as the spectacle was videotaped and seen on news reports around the world. The video shows Johnson sipping a Budweiser as Doe's ear is dismembered. Ahmadou Kourouma also accused Prince Johnson of war crimes (abduction and torture of several Firestone's executives) in his book "Allah is not obliged". Shortly after Doe's death, Johnson allied with UN-supported ECOMOG peacekeepers in capturing the Liberian capital. Subsequently, Johnson briefly claimed the presidency of Liberia in the fall of 1990. His claims ended following the consolidation of rebel power by his rival Charles Taylor of the NPFL. In an attempt by the weak national government to reconstruct Liberian politics, the INPFL was recognized at a conference held in Guinea, where Amos Sawyer was elected president. However, Johnson was forced to flee to Nigeria in fear of rebel forces supporting Taylor. He returned to Liberia in March 2004, stating his intention to return to politics by running for a senate seat in Nimba County; however, he left Liberia again on 7 April, apparently due to death threats he had received from the country's dominant rebel group, the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD). In the October 11, 2005 elections, Johnson contested and won a Senate seat representing Nimba County, despite having a reputation for wartime brutality and having committed gross human rights abuses. He is the chair of the Senate's defense committee. Can we have him prosecuted in Liberia? How long will take and how much money will the government spend on him? When he is working as Senetor in Liebira where he commited Human Rights abuses. Can his victims get justice? Which type of Justice will the victims get in Liberia? After the TRC after there must be a restorative Justice programs set up in Liberia. Will the government of Liberia really do? Thease are the thing we need to talk about when it comes to setting up TRC in Kenya.

All restorative justice programs have some common elements. They seek healing, forgiveness and active community involvement. The programs can take place at different times after a crime has occurred - sometimes after charges have been laid; sometimes after an accused has been found guilty of an offence.

Some examples of restorative justice programs include:

victim offender mediation;

family group conferencing;

sentencing circles;

consensus-based decision-making on the sentence; and

victim offender reconciliation panels.

Good restorative justice programs have well-trained facilitators who are sensitive to the needs of victims and offenders, who know the community in which the crime took place and who understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system. Did this ever happen in Sierra Leone or any other TRCs in Africa? Will it happenin Liberia after the TRC finish their work? It is not just setting up TRCs but after TRCs what can be done to help us rebuild our countries. These are questions Kenya have to ask.

Agnes M.F. Kamara-Umunna

Radio Producer/Pres

 

Have we been able to punish the perpetrators of violence?

Kyle Lambelet, that is a good question you have asked.

In Africa after TRCs is there any perpetrators of violence been punuished?

In South Africa the TRC and its subsequent report have been widely criticized. Many in both the former ruling white elite as well as the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) have called the TRC a witch hunt.Many of apartheid’s victims believe the process failed them by both granting amnesties and failing to pay reparations.The minority of TRC supporters, led by Desmond Tutu, former Chairperson of the TRC, argue that the process has been both healing and necessary for the future of a South African society based on human rights. The idea of bringing to justice those within an authoritarian regime who committed human rights abuses during their tenure is not new. The evolution of a human rights paradigm and the development of mechanisms necessary for pursuing justice for the survivors of human rights abuses emerged at the end of World War II with both the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. These tribunals have become the standard by which all others are measured. Duplications have been impossible, in large part due to the nature of the majority of transitions. As a result many varieties have emerged.

With roughly twenty commissions in more than fifteen countries over the past twenty-five years, it is evident that the "commission" has become an important transition tool. There are as many types of commissions as there are types of transitions. Each commission has its own limitations. The South African TRC is but one recent variation, albeit a variation that many viewed with high expectations. The TRC in its inception sought to alleviate the various problems and obstacles encountered by many of the recent commissions, particularly those in Latin America. Because South Africa’s TRC has been seen as an improvement over other experiments, it is legitimate to assess whether or not the goals of the TRC have been met and if this hybrid model has anything to offer other transitioning societies. Thus, two questions are addressed here. Is South Africa’s TRC a viable model for justice and reconciliation in a post-authoritarian society? What advantages and disadvantages does this model present? What can Kenya learn from South Africa TRC?

Neneh Binta Barrie, Was Sierra Leone been able to punish the perpetrators of violence?

Agnes M.F. Kamara-Umunna

Radio Producer/Pres

NOTE: I am taking the liberty of moving Yav Katshung Joseph's comment on Truth Commissions and Prosecutions to within this TRC dialogue so that others will be able to comment on it as well. You can see the two comments placed on his posting by clicking on the link. Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

INTRODUCTION

Truth commissions have been multiplying rapidly around the world and gaining increasing attention in recent years. They are proposed for different reasons and driven by diverse motives. They can be used firstly, for the purpose of national reconciliation and in the interests of the society; secondly, sometimes they can be used to avoid accountability or prosecution and merely to shield an offender from justice. Following recent outbreaks of violence in the aftermath of Kenya's presidential election last December, stakeholders continue to make strides toward peace. Parties have agreed among other things to a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, which will be established through an Act of Parliament. The Commission will inquire into human rights violations, including those committed by the state, groups, or individuals. This includes but is not limited to politically motivated violence, assassinations, community displacements, settlements, and evictions. It will also inquiry into major economic crimes, in particular grand corruption, historical land injustices, and the illegal or irregular acquisition of land, especially as these relate to conflict or violence. Other historical injustices shall also be investigated. The commission will primarily focus on events dating back to independence, December 12, 1963 up to February 28, 2008. However, it will as necessary look at antecedents to this date in order to understand the nature, root causes, or context that led to such violations, violence, or crimes. This gives us opportunity to share views on adequate truth commissions and their relationship with prosecutions.

TENSIONS BETWEEN TRUTH COMMISSIONS AND PROSECUTIONS

Very often, when a country wishes to move from dictatorship to democracy or from war to peace, various ways may be tried and these include trials in an international or national court of law and non-punitive approaches such as truth commissions. Thus, “…a country’s decisions about how to deal with its past should depend on many things: the type of dictatorship or war endured, the type of crimes committed, the level of societal complicity, the nation’s political culture and history, the conditions necessary for dictatorship to reoccur, the abruptness of the transition, and the new democratic government’s power and resources [1].” One may adds the “interests” of the country.

Different countries have chosen widely different strategies to deal with the past including prosecutions in one hand and, truth commissions and other non-punitive approaches, in the other. Although justice is crucial after violations of human rights, it may not be possible or practical. International tribunals are useful, but they are not the full solution. They are hugely expensive and can try only a small group of perpetrators, the most “responsible”. Ironically, many times, those who are tried are not the most responsible but the most “available” in the country. Therefore, justice becomes extremely selective and seems to be the way of granting de facto amnesty to those who fled the country and those responsible. Then come the necessity of other non-judicial mechanisms such as truth commissions not as a panacea for all the challenges of transition, or an alternative, but as a complement way to be used by broken societies, in order to bring the benefits of justice to the victims and to the political culture.

However, this is challenging and there are always tensions between the requirements of the criminal justice system and those of non-punitive approaches to gross and systematic human rights violations. Rightly, Charles Villa-Vicencio pointed out that, “the tension between justice and reconciliation and revenge, prosecution and amnesty is grounded as much in principled debate as in a tug-of-war between deep emotions, unresolved memories and uncertain futures. It is a tension that is best not collapsed into an attempted neat synthesis of a complex set of contradictions. The contradictions need to be sustained. The demands of the one side need to impact on the other. It is through honest encounter that opposing groups stand the best chance of knowing that they need one another. It is then that new possibilities begin to be imagined-and sometimes realised [2].

DOMESTIC TRUTH COMMISSIONS AND PROSECUTIONS: REACHING FORWARD

Truth Commissions are established to officially investigate and provide an accurate record of the broader pattern of abuses committed during repression, civil war and unjust periods. There have been more than thirty truth commissions worldwide, including in Sierra Leone, DRC, Morocco, and more importantly South Africa. “Truth commissions today”, according to Jose Alvarez, Professor of International Law at Columbia University, “are inescapable tools in establishing the truth of past crimes and a means for victim recompense and instruments to promote peace and reconciliation.”

Most recently, the United Nations Secretary-General’s report on “The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies” praised them as “a potentially valuable complementary tool in the quest for justice and reconciliation” and in “restoring public trust in national institutions of governance [3]”. The increased interest in truth commissions is, in part, a reflection of the limited success in judicial approaches to accountability, and the obvious need for other measures to recognise past wrongs and confront, punish or reform those persons and institutions that were responsible for violations. Successful prosecutions of perpetrators of massive atrocities have been few, as under-resourced and often politically compromised judicial systems struggle to confront politically contentious crimes. With an eye on building a human rights culture for the future, many new governments have turned to mechanisms outside the judicial system to confront, as well as learn from the horrific crimes of the past [4].

However, a truth commission should at the same time never be allowed to circumvent international human rights law or, more specifically, to ignore the punitive demands of the criminal justice.

Related to the South African case, where there was a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) with a possibility to grant a conditional amnesty [5] in exchange of a full disclosure and shown remorse, could we say according to the Rome Statute that, the TRC decisions or proceedings were taken for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility?

One should take into account and acknowledge that the South African TRC was democratic and genuine. The purpose was not to shift or to hide someone or a group from prosecution. It was in the interest of peace, reconciliation, etc. In my view and for many others, the South African TRC was not there to shield perpetrators but to seek the truth for national reconciliation. South Africa acted in good faith; the TRC was established by the best efforts of negotiators to end violations of human rights. This is justice, to my view and I may say in the interests of the entire country/society, not in the interest of prosecuting some few and not others, and still walk free as if they were granted de facto amnesty.

Emphasising this argument, Juan Mendez, stated that:

“In most parts of the world, the South African example stands out as an attempt to achieve reconciliation and forgiveness without impunity. Others decry the fact that most perpetrators of the worst crimes of apartheid did evade justice. In my view, however, the South African exercise with truth, justice and reconciliation is notable for its insistence on hearing the victims, consulting with all members of society, allowing participation by all stakeholders, and conducting the exercise in complete transparency. It is in this sense that the South African example continues to inspire all those who decide to turn a page in a country’s history without forgetting the plight of those who suffered [6].”

Therefore, we may pause with Naomi Roht-Arriaza that, if perpetrators appear before an independent and democratic truth commission that hears applications for conditional and accountable amnesty, they should not face prosecution by the ICC. In this case, amnesty (conditional) is granted for the purpose of domestic reconciliation and not to shield him/her/(the perpetrator) from criminal prosecution [7]. However, can all truth commissions have the same purpose of not shielding perpetrators? It is important to draw the line in order to avoid some contradictions between truth commissions and prosecutions. The next point will deal with that.

THE QUESTION OF ADEQUATE TRUTH COMMISSIONS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

We should ask ourselves if all truth commissions should be considered as genuine and serve the interests of the country. As we may know, in some countries the purpose of a truth commission may be not genuine and reasonable. This is challenging and it will be useful to deal at the case-by-case level. Rightly, Professor James Crawford of the University of Cambridge has said in relation to Article 17 of the Rome Statute:

“I think there is a question about truth commissions, because you can’t say a priori which ones are a reasonable response to the situation, and which ones are a cover-up. It’s going to require extreme care by the prosecutor. There may be some problem there with the capacity to subvert those processes if they are reasonable, and we’ll just have to hope that the institutions within the court take a sensible view about it. But complementarity extends to covering internal processes which don’t necessarily involve prosecutions of individuals, so there’s no reason why the principle of complementarity ought not to cover an appropriately constituted truth commission [8]."

Moreover, Charles Villa-Vicencio, talking about truth commissions states that: “… They demand fewer resources than courts and, if designed properly, can provide some accountability [9].” Using the words such as “if designed properly”, meant that we may find some not properly designed and therefore, the need for benchmarks in order to comply with international law. Can we say that the South African TRC was able to provide accountability and was consistent with international law?

Despite some few critiques, the South African TRC is internationally recognised, and has been favourably endorsed by numerous international human rights organisations and commentators. The TRC was passed pursuant to a valid Act of Parliament and imposes a form of public procedure and accountability for the actions of perpetrators. It was the country's decision in favour of peace. This is not impunity because there was political consensus in South Africa that getting as much of the truth out as possible and having fewer, but more effective prosecutions, was a just result. Given that, this was what the majority of the public wanted, that is not impunity.

In this line, speaking on the relationship between the prosecutorial mandate of the ICC and the amnesty administered by the South African TRC, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has observed:

“The purpose of the clause in the Statute (which allows the Court to intervene where the state is ‘unwilling or unable’ to exercise jurisdiction) is to ensure that mass-murderers and other arch-criminals cannot shelter behind a State run by themselves or their cronies, or take advantage of a general breakdown of law and order. No one should imagine that it would apply to a case like South Africa’s, where the regime and the conflict which caused the crimes have come to an end, and the victims have inherited power.

It is inconceivable that, in such a case, the Court would seek to substitute its judgement for that of a whole nation which is seeking the best way to put a traumatic past behind it and build a better future [10]”.

As noted, the South African TRC has been recognized and even endorsed as a valid means of dealing with crimes arising out of apartheid [11]. Moreover, state practice [12], international jurisprudence [13] and authors [14] confirm that the Rome Statute does not preclude a state from utilizing amnesty as an effective means of prosecution. However, what about the Congolese TRC?

In assessing if the Congolese TRC met some minimal requirements to approach legitimacy under international law, one can point out that the Congolese TRC was not created and operated transparently in order to sustain democratic legitimacy. There was a clear lack of citizen involvement in the creation and functioning of the TRC, and openness to ensure domestic legitimacy. There was no endorsement of the TRC and its work as a mechanism of transitional justice. Moreover, there are many critiques because commissioners came from different factions, and were not chosen by means of a process, which tried to ensure a democratic spirit and practice, and transparency. Therefore, it seems that the purpose of such a commission, was to be a “Truth Omission” instead of a “Truth Commission” and cannot encounter support by the international community [15].

In order for truth commissions to merit international legitimacy, Professor Crawford suggested that one possible test would be whether the procedure in question had been freely ratified by the successor regime, “so it’s not just a way that the generals can sign their amnesty on the way out of the door [16].” And for that, Charles Villa-Vicencio [17] helps us by saying that truth commissions needs at a minimum to incorporate the following:

- There needs to be convincing evidence that the majority of citizens endorse the provision as a mechanism of transitional justice; - The disclosure of as much truth as possible concerning the gross violations of human rights; - Accountability of those responsible for gross violations of human rights, recognising that this need not to be in the form of retributive sentencing by the state; - A mechanism needs to be put in place to provide a form of relief or reparation to victims whose rights are suspended by a qualified amnesty provision; - The suspension of prosecutions in a transitionary situation should not be a pretext for the abrogation of other requirements of international law; - A forum in which victims and survivors may tell their stories and questions; - Prosecutions should remain an option both during and after the TRC against those perpetrators who did not adequately participate in the process.

Although we agreed with Charles on these criteria, the last one seems not to be consistent. Truth commissions are not alternative to prosecutions, all are two sides of the same coin and should be used complementarily but sequencing for their success. Saying that “prosecutions should remain an option both during and after the TRC against those perpetrators who did not adequately participate in the process” seems to be too simplistic and could undermine the entire effort to heal the wounds of the nation and to fight against impunity.

In addition to satisfying the above minimum criteria for international legitimacy, a Truth commission should also be created and operated transparently in order to sustain democratic legitimacy. Citizen involvement in the creation of a truth commission, and openness to media coverage of its operations, are necessary to ensure domestic legitimacy [18]. And Juan Mendez put it clearly by saying:

“There are two conditions of legitimacy that we should insist upon for any program of transitional justice. First, transitional justice policy should be developed as part of an open, democratic debate, which includes consultation with and participation of the relevant stakeholders and full transparency of decisions. If decisions about how to reckon with the past are adopted exclusively by the parties to a conflict, without appropriate consultations with the victims of abuse or with society at large, the result will almost always generate dissatisfaction and rejection. Second, transitional justice policy should be contemplated in as comprehensive and holistic an approach as possible. This is not only because there will always be an ‘impunity gap’, meaning that many cases of abuse will not be resolved by trials, thus generating the need for a broader treatment of the universe of violations. It is also because the emerging principles in international law … establish that the obligations of the State are four-fold: to prosecute perpetrators, to unearth the truth, to offer reparations to victims, and to reform abusive public institutions [19].

CONCLUSION

In many transition periods two methods are used to establish record of grave human rights crimes following a conflict/war: prosecutions at national or international level and truth commissions with various names, which investigate situations and submits reports. Both of these two methods are not sufficient and therefore, the need to complement each other.

There is a growing demand for transitional justice mechanisms such as truth commissions, around the world. The problem however, it is to test if all those mechanisms imply good faith. Is the effort designed to generate more truth, more justice, reparations, and genuine institutional reform? If so, they are welcome. If the objective is to evade the State’s and society’s legal, ethical and political obligations to their people, they should be rejected. The answer should be found in the design of the process itself, but also in the degree of participation, consultation, and transparency that surrounds them (e.g. of South Africa).

Moreover, we should start by avoiding seeing truth commissions as an alternative to prosecutions. Even if many of them have been accompanied by grants of amnesty to the major perpetrators of human rights crimes, viewing truth commissions, as substitute for prosecutions is not a right way and can lead to contradictions. Therefore, we should try to consider truth commissions as complementary to national and international prosecutions, not to substitute them. They are two sides of the same coin: transitional justice. However, the processes must be sequenced in a way that one does not affect the effectiveness of the other. Accordingly, Scharf has said, “a country should not rush ahead with prosecutions at the cost of political instability and social upheaval or that every single perpetrator must be brought to justice, an impossible task in most countries that have experienced widespread human rights abuses. By documenting abuses and preserving evidence, a truth commission can enable a country to delay prosecutions until the international community has acted, or the new government is secure enough to take such action against members of the former regime [20].”

Furthermore, it may be useful to examine the utility of conducting prosecutions after Truth commissions as a means of uncovering more “truth” that was not revealed through the process. Because, like in the South African case, if those people who did not apply for amnesty or those whom the amnesty was refused, do not face trials, someone could say that there is de facto amnesty and therefore, the purpose of a TRC was just to shield some perpetrators. In this hypothesis, the process will violate the international law and will not be in the interest of justice (society as a whole). So, we should look on the possibilities to trials for those persons in order to avoid impunity, contradictions and allow the roots of a just society to take hold.

*Yav Katshung Joseph is a Human Rights lawyer and Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo. ------------- NOTES

1] Tina Rosenberg, “Afterword: Confronting the Painful Past”, in Martin Meredith, Coming to Terms: South Africa’s Search for Truth, 1999, p 328

2] Charles Villa-Vicencio, “Reconciliation as Political Necessity: Reflections in the wake of Civil and Political Strife”, p.3

3] Paavani Reddy, “Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Instruments for Ending Impunity and Building Lasting Peace” in The Chronicle, See http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue4/0404p19.html

4] Priscilla Hayner, Same species, different animal: how South Africa compares to truth commissions worldwide, in Charles Villa-Vicencio and Wilhelm Verwoerd, “Looking Back, Reaching Forward: Reflections on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa” UCT Press, 2000, p34-35

5] Boraine, Alexander, “Amnesty in exchange for truth: Evaluating the South African model” in “A country Unmasked” Pgs 258-275

6] Juan E Mendez, “Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective”, Outline, Somerset West Conference, March 28, 2005 Inaugural Address

7] Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “Amnesty and the International Criminal Court”, International Crimes, Peace, and Human Rights: The Role of the International Criminal Court (Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers Inc., 2000) at 79.

8] James Crawford, See http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-us-icc.html (accessed on 4th December 2007)

9] Charles Villa-Vicencio and Erik Doxtader (Ed) 2004, Pieces of the Puzzle: keywords on reconciliation and transitional justice, Cape Town, pp.89-90

10] Charles Villa-Vicencio and Erik Doxtader (Ed) 2004, op.cit, p 91

11] Kader Asmal, International Law & Practice: Dealing with the Past and the South African Experience, 15 AM. U. INT.’L L. REV. 1211, 1228 (2000).

12] Azanian Peoples Organization (AZAPO) v. The President of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (4) S.A.L.R. 671, at 30 (South African Constitutional Court);

13] Prosecutor v. Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, No. IT-94-1-AR72 (Oct. 2,1995) at 6

14] Leila Nadya Sadat, Universal Jurisdiction, National Amnesties, and Truth Commissions: Reconciling the Irreconcilable, in Stephen Macedo, Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law (2003); Scharf, Amnesty Exception, supra note 33; John T. Holmes, The Principle of Complementarity, in 41-79 The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (Roy S. Lee., ed., 1999); Michael P. Scharf, Swapping Amnesty for Peace: Was there a Duty to Prosecute International Crimes in Haiti?, 31 TEX. INT’L L.J. 1, 4-5 (1996).

15] Critiques reside especially in the way of nomination and the issue of openness by involving civil society and other parties.

16] James Crawford, See http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-us-icc.html

17] Charles Villa-Vicencio, Truth Commissions, in Charles Villa-Vicencio and Erik Doxtader (Ed) 2004, op.cit., p 92

18] See Andre du Toit, “The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC): Local History, Global Accounting”, in Politique Africaines 92 (2003), p7

19] J. Mendez, 1997. “Accountability for Past Abuses”, Human Rights Quarterly, 19, pp. 255- 282.

20] Michael P. Scharf, “The Case for a Permanent International Truth Commission”, in Duke J. Comp.& Int’Law, Vol.7:375, 1997,p399

 

 

The road to justice for those of us working in Latin America has been harsh and slow.  After a burst of energy after Argentina returned to democracy (which led to the initiation of hundreds of criminal procedures against human rights violators and the sentencing of the top junta leaders), we had blanket amnesties and pardons.  The rest of Latin America followed this course, with amnesties appearing everywhere.  There were truth commissions, but if they intended to bring reconciliation, what they got was more discord.

 So we went abroad.  Italy, France, Germany (where it didn't work out) and finally Spain.  Then we had the incredible luck of getting Pinochet in England - and though he was ultimately let go,  the mere possibility that he could be held accountable for his crimes, reawoke civil society's quest for justice in the whole continent.  It's been a slow march since, but there were 190 sentences for human rights violations in Chile in the last few years.  In Argentina I don't think we've gotten 5 (though there are 4,000 open cases).  But the Argentine Supreme Court ruled recently that pardons for gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity violate international law, and are therefore inapplicable, a first.  This week the first case for forced disappearances started in Guatemala.  Peru is trying Fujimori, a constitutional president, for forced-disappearances.  Uruguay has done the same with a military president.  It's slow, very slow, but we're getting somewhere.   And as I said before, it's better late than never.

Hopefully, countries like Kenya who are dealing with recent human rights violations won't have to wait so long. 

 

 

During the three years I spent working on the East Timor TRC (the CAVR), I worked closely on a program which took a novel approach to the issue of justice vs truth. We were faced with a similar situation to that which was referred to in the dialogue yesterday in the Liberian context, in which the local legal system had very little capacity to provide justice. The UN had established the Serious Crimes Process, which eventually prosecuted over 80 ‘small fish’ (ie East Timorese militia members.) The ‘big fish’- mostly Indonesian military officers- had escaped over the border to Indonesia, where a subsequent judicial process resulted in 17 out of 18 charged being acquitted. However, the challenge of maintaining peace involved finding some solution for not only serious crimes but the many thousands of ‘lesser crimes’-burning houses, beatings, looting etc, which had been committed by members of the same communities as the victims. The struggling legal system, including fledgling police service, prosecutors and courts, could not keep up with even newly committed serious crimes such as murders, let alone these thousands of past, conflict-related less serious crimes, and the international eyes were focused on the elusive ‘big fish.’ In that context it seemed that nothing could be done about the less serious crimes, but in fact the anger over these acts threaten to ignite hundreds of communities in which the perpetrators and victims had previously lived together in peace.

 

In this context the TRC (the CAVR) did fulfil a very important function directly related to justice. It carried out a program called the Community Reconciliation Procedures, in which perpetrators of ‘less serious crimes’ (not murder, rape or torture) volunteered to take part in a process in their local villages, presided over by a Panel of local leaders and involving traditional spiritual and dispute resolution practices. The perpetrators were required to admit their crimes, face the victims and community and ask for forgiveness. The community and victims were able to ask questions, and eventually a solution was sought in which the perpetrators agreed to do some community service work or pay modest compensation to the victims. This agreement was registered with the court and when the work or payment was completed immunity from further legal action was established.

 

Approximately 1500 cases were completed in this way, over 18 months. When the program closed an additional 3000 individuals wanted to participate but could not. What was the motivation of these perpetrators, in a context in which there was actually no practical threat, no ‘stick’ from the dysfunctional legal system? The ‘carrot’ was the opportunity to explain themselves to their communities, to state not only what they had done but what they had not done (and thereby dispel rumours), to apologise, and ask for forgiveness. This allowed them to be received back into the community again, it was their ‘key’ to the door, painful, embarrassing, shaming, but necessary. And very importantly, as groups of perpetrators participated in the same communal hearings, it gave the communities a chance to examine the conflict as a whole. Each hearing was followed by a celebration, funded modestly by the commission, which was also extremely important.

 

Many criticisms could be leveled at this process. Purists claim the perpetrators should all have been tried and punished, that the ‘community service’ and compensation resembled amnesty as it was too lenient, that the perpetrators should have all have received legal counsel and representation first, that the victims did not receive sufficient reparations etc etc. I agree, in a perfect world, yes all of these should happen. But Timor, like so many other situations in the post conflict years, bears very little resemblance to a perfect world. In the end, in the heavy mud of trying to bring perpetrators and victims together in a context of anger, suspicion and hatred, the CRP’s provided an important, limited and partial solution. It worked in Timor because it was designed for Timor, shouldn’t be transplanted or copied as a whole, but the principles could provide some guidance for some other very imperfect but important partial solutions. It also raises the possibility that TRC’s can also create quite different processes for each different setting, in order to respond to the local context and challenges.

[Posted by Patrick Burgess, current Asia Director for ICTJ]

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

While it's true that tribunals are not necessarily the best tools for arriving at collective truth, and they don't necessarily give everyone the opportunity to tell their story - they sometimes can perform these functions even better than truth commissions, if for no other reason that they sit for longer.  

 For example, the criminal procedures against Argentine military in Spain involved hundreds of victims testifying, both in Argentina and Spain.  The trials for truths that took/take place in several Argentine cities also had the same effect.  In both cases, the procedures have approached a decade and have resulted in more comprehensive "truths" about the nature and mechanisms of the repression in specific areas that the CONADEP was able to gather. In addition, they have helped to arrive to "individual" truths, as to the likely fate of many of the disappeared.  Plus in the Spanish case, the procedures led to a conviction and a ruling that foreign courts not only had universal jurisdiction over international crimes, but that they also could and should apply the figure of crimes against humanity internally.  Its political and judicial effect will - IMHO - be great.

In this day and age, moreover, there are other methods for victims and witnesses to offer their testimony than truth commissions.  The internet itself allows them to publish their testimony online and makes it available to much larger audiences than the unwieldy volumes of truth commissions do.  Televised trials put at least some testimonies in front of the whole society.  One of the things we do at  Project Disappeared (http://www.desaparecidos.org/) is give families and victims a forum where to tell their stories.  Most of this people have already testified before the CONADEP and sometimes before the courts, but they see value in having their words were practically everyone can access them.

This is not to say that truth commissions are not valuable.  As I said before, I think they are essential for discovering and telling the global or collective truth - in particular, as in the case of Argentina, if they come up with a short, user friendly report :-) 

I haven't been able to find that summary online, however.  The 9 tomes of the full report are there, however.

The interesting issue of the use of technology for truth & justice work is raised in this discussion.  The Liberian TRC has been exploring some innovations in this area, in a strong partnership with Georgia Institute of Technology, a university based in Atlanta, GA, USA.  Liberians and others from around the world are able to submit statements online to the TRC: https://www.trcofliberia.org/statements.  Moreover, video of TRC of Liberia public hearings are being uploaded to the site and are available for viewing from anywhere in the world: https://www.trcofliberia.org/memorials/video-galleries/video-gallery/pubilc-hearings/. The TRC also is working with GA Tech to develop mobile TRC kiosks that would run on generator power, and would operate with a user interface that takes into account the literacy and language issues in rural parts of the country.  The kiosks are designed to take the TRC process into areas that may not have otherwise had access.The use of technology also raises serious issues however, particular with data security, confidentiality, and the ability of anyone to participate without extensive verification of their identity.  Also, does the use of technology remove some of the important aspects of a TRC process, involving human to human contact in actively listening to and validating the story of one individual?Laura A. Young, JD, MPH  

 

The issue of identity is a very difficult one to solve - it's less important when you have a memorial site, like ours, than when you have a judicial or quasi-judicial procedure where truth finding is the goal.  But this is a problem that exists regardless.  In Argentina, for example, there was a group of people who were disappeared and, while imprisoned in secret detention camps, were co-opted to work for the military authorities.  Several continued to work for them even after they were freed, and have given corrupted testimonies to both the CONADEP and the courts.  These are not cases in which the identities are a question, just the allegiances. 

Encrypting all mail between the witness and the commission can alleviate worries of confidentiality and data security - in particular, in the case of witnesses who don't want to be identified.

 

Georgia Tech and the TRC are very aware of the data security issues, and I should have made clear that they are using the best available in technology to assure encryption, security, and confidentiality of information. 

Laura A. Young, JD, MPH

I would like to start my participation in the new tactics dialog by sharing with you on my experience with trc in Timor Leste. This reflection will be as a respond to the following questions:

• What was your goal for using a TRC process? What were the expected or hoped for outcomes?

The goal of the TRC process in Timor Leste was to build peace foundation for Timor Leste to by conducting truth seeking on human rights violations that were happened in Timor Leste from 1974 - 1999. As we aware that Timor Leste has very dificult history that have been destryed relationships during 24 years conflict under Indonesian occupation. So, we need a procees to deal with our past and find ways to build peace as foundation for nation building.

• Was this goal achieved? What were the actual outcomes?

This is very dificult question for me to reflect on the TRC process in Timor Leste. I found that TRC process in Timor Leste has rised lots of participatino and expectation of victims, family of victims to a chieve justice as promise. The report was about more then 2500 pages. It was about facts of human rights violations from 1974 - 1999 including 200 recomendations about dealing with past and prevent to not repeating human rights violations in the future. Timor Leste has good dream to build peace foundation as mentioned in number 1 but it has been no outcomes. It was just because since the report hand over to the President, National Parliements and UN up to date The State have doing nothing to the report. It was not debated officialy in the Parliement.

• What were the challenges? What were the issues that the process could not address?

How is this affecting what is happening now in your country?I think during the implementation of the TRC process there was no challenges that faced by TRC. I can say that it was success full and victims and family of the victims has very much supporting the process. The only challenges is that this was the first ASian TRC that happened in Timor Leste. It was a new process that happened in a new country like Timor Leste. So we are like doin learning by doing. Even though in the end we feel success because people has been contributed to the process and tell the truth about human rights violations drung 24 years from 1974 - 1999. The other challenges was time. It was because we are dealing with 24 years of conflict but we only got 2.5 years to implement the big mandate of truth seeking and facilitating community reconciliation. But i also think that after the report was hand over another challenges that we are facing was political will from Timorese leadears to debate and implement these recomendations. Also political will of Indonesia and International community that were contribute to the conflict in Timor Leste from 1974 - 1999.

• What are the 'lessons learned'? What would you do differently if presented with the opportunity to do the TRC process again?

For time been i think that TRC process is important for Timor Leste to deal with past and to bring justice to the people of Timor Leste. But first we need political will of Timorese leaders and International community to implement the recomendations mentioned in the report. If the leadersd are failed to implement the recomendation it means nothing for victims and we don't need another TRC process again. For me it will just like open wounds but no idea bout how to heal and recovered the wounds. This is a disaster for the Timor Leste.

• What are the critiques surrounding this tactic? And how do we overcome these critiques?

The critics was TRC is only a project and it will just finished when it finished. It was then received many critics when the report was not debated or nothing of the report was implemented. For me it will be no way to overcome it it no political will to implement the recomendations.

• Was there an international presence involved in the process? Were there challenges in having an international presence? Should there be an international presence? What are the issues surrounding international organizations leading this process versus a strictly indigenous process? How might these issues be addressed for future TRC processes?

During TRC process in Timor Leste i found many international staff presence and involved in the process. It Timor Leste was under UNTAET (United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor) adminisration. It's also reflected the role of UN and International community during 24 years of conflict. UN have been involved in the process of rezolving Timor Leste's case since 1960's. Even though the international presence was to support in the formation and the implementaion of TRC process. Even the money that were used in implementing the mandat was come from international community. Timor Leste has not given any financial support to implement the project. This is also reflect the independency of TRC in Timor Leste. I think it was right since Timor Leste's case was an international case. So' we need international presence to involved in TRC process. Its also important for implementation of the recomendations in the future.

Thanks, Jose Caetano Guterres

 

Who keeps the record of the TRC? It makes sense that whoever that is be the one who at least makes itself available to take more statements.  In Argentina, for example, that is the Secretariat of Human Rights. 

I think that's the real issue in Kenya.  The post-electoral violence has stopped - but there is no reason to believe it will not come back if the underlying causes of the violence are not addressed.   In Kenya, the idea is that the TRC would look at the violence and the causes of violence that have occurred since independence - and it would include a special look at the violations of economic rights. 

 Could a process which gives people the right to express their grievances in a neutral forum be catalystic for creating a context in which these grievances can be addressed (if there is the political will to do it, which is another question altogether)?   I tend to think that this process is necessary, but that *now* is not the right time for it.  The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights will issue a comprehensive report on this period of post-electoral violence in a few months, which will include recommendations about how to address those historical grievances (I imagine), and we'll see whether they are paid attention to now.  None of the recommendations of past committees of inquiry and the like have been acted on.

Sophia (and others), I have a question for you.  What is your opinion of the National Commission on Reconciliation and Reparation of Colombia and the work they are doing?

A number of questions have been asked about the South African TRC in the discussion so far. Rather than attempting to answer them directly, though the themes will no doubt re-emerge, I would like to take a step back for a moment linking to Marga's comment. To share what I understand to have been some of the context in which South Africa’s TRC was formulated, promulgated and implemented. The intention is to provide a contextual understanding from which to critically assess the South African TRC as one of South Africa’s mechanisms to constructively engage political conflict and contribute to political transition from in SA’s case, oppressive minority rule under apartheid to democracy.

As you will remember, the TRC was formulated in 1995 during negotiations by political leaders representing political parties who had been engaged in armed conflict for more than 30 years. These were the leaders of Apartheid State and previously banned liberation movement political parties. The background to these public negotiations was years of “secret talks” the State had with the leadership of band political parties spearheading the armed liberation struggle, in particular the ANC. By the mid 1980’s in the face of increasing pressures felt from the armed struggle, the international pressure in the form of sanctions and moral condemnation as well as pressure from the more liberal political opposition corners within the government, Apartheid leaders were force to seek a political solution the outcome of which was unclear.  

 

The objective of these negotiations was to formulate a negotiated political settlement that would establish a path “a bridge” for South Africa a free democratic society based on equality for all, and in so doing shift political power. The negotiations were disrupted by the withdrawal of some political parties, they broke down around a number of vexed questions and were re-engaged and ultimately lasted approximately two years as the political leaders applied themselves (their minds, hearts, values and sense of justice from their various vantage points) to a range of heated and complex questions.

 

One such question was how to deal with the past. It was these former political enemies who were faced with the task of finding a way to do this that would be acceptable to all sides. A complex question, engaged with at a political level in the context of these negotiations. Agreement was not easy and by all accounts agreement was never reached. Rather it was in the final moments of the negotiation process that a political compromise was brokered. The result was The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Act No 34 of 1995 (www.doj.gov.za/trc/). It was this Act that promulgated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The overall objective was to restore the human dignity of both survivors and perpetrators and promote national unity and reconciliation.

 

Its mandate was threefold:

• To establish as much truth as possible about the Gross Human Rights Violations (GHRV) that occurred under Apartheid rule from 1960 -1994. To hold public hearings so that the nature and extent of GHRV suffered is made public and acknowledged.  
• To provide amnesty to those responsible for these GHRV who meet the criterion for amnesty (full disclosure, acting in accordance to a clear political mandate, being a member of a recognised political organisation engaged in the armed struggle, that the GHRV committed was in line with the intended political objective). To hold public hearings for all amnesty applicants.  
• To provide support for all those going through the TRC process (statement givers and those appearing in the TRC’s public hearings)  

 

This discussion thus has touched on a range of important and intriguing issues, I would like to focus on two main threads in the current discussion, namely;

•  What is the role of a Truth Seeking process in managing political conflict?  

• In what way does a Truth Seeking process need to be part of broader attempts to reach moral, political, social and other goals in order to constructively contribute to the management of political conflict?

 Some useful sites related to South Africa’s TRC

http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/

http://truth.wwl.wits.ac.za/terms.php?linkto=cat_home

http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v8/v8i1a2.htm

Galuh, you have provided an excellent and certainly disturbing example of how a tactic -- such as the TRC process -- can be adapted to promote a goal that is counter to the values and benefits for which the tactic was intentionally created.

As you point out, TRCs are at the center and core a victim's hearing model. The powerful and positive force of TRC processes have been the recognition and empowerment of victims to find their voice, share their experience that builds a collective narrative for a country and community to address the previous status quo of silence and impunity, and plants the seeds for justice, if not actually providing some aspects of justice outright. (As others have already pointed out, the timeline for reaching certain kinds of justice - such as cases reaching conclusion in courts of law has often taken many decades.)

A TRC process that eliminates the accountability back to the victims is an intentional distortion of the tactic. The "truth" in this kind of process is meant to reinforce rather than dimantle the culture of impunity.

Are there counter processes being proposed from other sectors of civil society in Indonesia to balance and address this distortion?

Nancy Pearson, New Tactics Program Manager

I don't know that the strategy for getting TRC's recommendations implemented - provided civil society agrees with such recommendations - is any different that the strategy to make the state comply with its human rights obligation sin general.  You advocate for your position using all the activist tools at your disposal: dissemination of information, education of the populace, political activism, appeal to international institutions and other states, etc.  Ultimately it's a political struggle, but not different than all the other ones.

And yes, in most cases there is a need for institutional reform.  In cases of grave human rights violations, judicial systems have often failed and they need to be reformed.  New institutions, such as human rights secretariats, human rights commissions or ombudsmen offices, and other bodies in charge of attending specific types of complaints, need to be created and properly funded and staffed.  In the cases where the human rights violations resulted from military coups, the military usually needs to be reformed as well.  The same is true of the police and the intelligence services.  It's a huge job, and one that the government must undertake, under constant pressure from civil society. 

It'll be interesting to see to what degree Liberia will put into effect the recommendations of its TRC.  Unless the recommendations are rather tepid, I don't see it happening without significant pressure from civil society and international actors.  The pressure to maintain institutions as they are is too strong to be overcome by mere legislation without a fully committed government behind it.  And governments that start committed to an ideal of truth and justice, do not necessarily stay so when confronted with internal pressure (this was the case in Argentina in the late 80's, when a comprehensive search for justice awoke the ire of the military and the possibilities of another coup - which led directly to the amnesty laws)

Of course, when a TRC is in itself an impunity instrument, those specific dangers will not be there - but any substantial reform will endanger interests who are not likely to take it without a fight.  

 It is easy to be overly enthusiastic when truth and justice processes start, but it's important to be aware of what the possible misshaps may be.  And indeed plan - but as a HR advocate myself, I think that those plans will not come to fruition without the use of the common tools of HR advocacy.

When a TRC's mandate ends, implementation is left to the government, civil society and (sometimes) to the national human rights commission.  But TRC recommendations are often unpaletable to the government ,and post-conflict civil society and national human rights commissions may be weak or non-existent.  This can lead to slow - or even worse, no - implementation of the TRC's recommendations.  There is no question that politicians and civil society should use every tool in their "human rights toolkits" to fight for implementation.  But what about those of us outside of the country?  Is there a role for us?  Shouldn't we help with pushing for implementation of the TRC's recommendations if they are based on international human rights standards and the result of a serious and genuine TRC process?  Part of what we are trying to do with the Liberia TRC Diaspora Project is raise awareness in the U.S. about the conflict and the transitional justice process in Liberia, as well as the experience of Liberians in the diaspora.  Hopefully, we can use that awareness to generate long-term support from the Liberian diaspora , as well as the American public and policy makers, for implementing the TRC's recommendations.

I may be biased because while my organization works for human rights around the world, and in Latin America in particular, we are based in the US and Europe - but I think the job of being a human rights activist doesn't change based on where you are.   The roles of "domestic" and "international" activists - to give them a name - are complimentary, and in the best of world both groups should work together.  This should include working to implement the recommendation of the TRC, if those are in tune with their general human rights policy.  International activists are particularly good at socializing information to an international audience and lobbying international governments and institutions (and of course, so much the better if they help fund human rights efforts at home) to put pressure on the domestic government to institure the necessary changes.

The work of the disapora should include helping to "round up" exilees to testify before the TRC and thus give it a more complete picture of what happened.    For example, there were hundreds of thousands of Chilean exilees during the Pinochet dictatorship - without hearing their story, we can't really say we understand how the repressive apparatus of the Chilean dictatorship worked.

Jean Rodenbough

Greensboro, NC

Having read through these posts once I returned home from the weekend, I am aware that there are many ways to work through a truth and reconciliation process. Using technical means offers new possibilities to include in these processes. Yes, it is not wise to begin such an effort while the violence or acts needing to be resolved are still taking place. There is value in the perspective of time. Here in Greensboro, the process began about 25 years after the event. As someone pointed out, we had one particular event which called for reconciliation, rather than ongoing conditions, so it was from a different perspective here than that of others'. That particular event, however, was one result of an ongoing culture of racism and economic injustice, which boiled over at times into major conflicts in our society, violent reactions which simmer and fester until some acknowledgement and resolution occurs. We can't necessarily have full reconciliation with all elements of society, but the movement toward forgiveness, hope of reparation in some cases, and healing a community or a state or nation can be a dynamic and progressive activity. I don't know how our process will reach resolution but none of our situations will find the same tactics and reconciliations, as I read the experiences of others in this group. I am in awe of the courage of the efforts I am reading about here in your comments.

 

Many in Greensboro have critiqued the T&R process as dealing with ancient history, an event that happened nearly 30 years ago. They argue that this isolated incident in the past has nothing to do with our present relationships. Most of these critiques come from people who have a vested interest in forgetting that past, it alows them to purge themselves of their complicity (or active participation) in the violence of Nov. 3rd, 1979. This critique is built on an assumption about time as linear and progressive. Events that are in the past don't have much to do with the present or future so it's best to just forget, or so the line of thinking goes.

One of the purposes behind creating a TRC here was to dispute this kind of linear understanding of time and to expose how one violent event is connected to a larger history of racist violence that continues to live in the present and, unacknowledged, continues to shape our common future. Just in the last year in Greensboro: the Police Department has been embroiled in a scandal involving racist surveillance of its own officers, an African-American city council member has had to defend herself against a racist attack launched by white members of council, and it has been exposed that the Special Investigations Unit of the GPD destroyed documents related to the events of 79. These are some of the more sensational occurences--the continued negative attitudes toward organizers for social change, the existence of economic and educational disparities between whites and communities of color, and the growing chasm between the rich and poor notwithstanding.

It seems to me that the T&R process provides both an opportunity to address the past, giving particular weight to survivors' experiences (which is of vital importance), as well as to expose the pasts living and vibrant connection to the present. I know there are other groups in the US who are interested in using the T&R model to address events that are even more than a century ago (see the Wilmington Race Riot Commission and Southern Truth and Reconciliation).

I think the T&R process may be a helpful model there too, though it may be highly modified. As Jill Williams has noted elsewhere, it is one tool in the toolbox.

Kyle Lambelet Greensboro, North Carolina

In the Liberian diaspora, there are also people who respond that what happened between 1979 and 2003 is over and done.  Why should we dig up the painful past? It won't bring anyone back.  Perhaps this avoidance, on the part of victims as well as perpetrators and government representatives, is true for all post-conflict societies.  But we have also encountered many in the diaspora who have come forward to give their statements precisely because they believe that the history that the TRC will create won't be accurate without their contributions.  Many others have given their statements because they feel they need to speak on behalf of a loved one who was killed; otherwise, their loved one's story will be lost to Liberian history.  As a statement taker, I have been deeply affected by the profound courage that so many Liberians have shown in being willing to relive the most horrible experiences in order to give statements in honor of the memory of their loved ones.   Many of our statement givers, as well as our volunteer statement takers, have pointed out that there is an unexpected power in bearing witness in this way.  It is impossible to bring someone back, but it needs to be acknowledged that it can be important for the statement giver to take this step to ensure that what happened to their loved one becomes part of the country's national history.

Jennifer Prestholdt

Liberia TRC Diaspora Project

Deputy Director, The Advocates for Human Rights

Why is it necessary to educate the community about the TRC process? (e.g., regarding mandates, parameters, interaction with other processes such as Criminal Tribunals, etc)It is necessary to educate the community about TRC process for various reasons and these are as follows:

• It will simply address all the questions and expectations witnesses and potential witnesses may have about the process. For instance, victims in Sierra Leone expected the TRC to compensate them for their loss. They believed, the TRC was in the position to force the Government to address their concerns. If the TRC had explained at the beginning that, they will only make recommendation to the Government, and that they do not have the power to force Government to act, things would have been clear from the beginning.
• It is important for victims to know that, their perpetrators may not face any punishment as a result of their testimonies, however the world would hear their stories and their stories will be acknowledged. This is important because, victims expected the TRC to punish their perpetrators after they have testified. In other to help them understand, the mandate of the TRC must be clear to them before they are invited to testify
• Most Sierra Leone where not too clear about the difference between the TRC and the Court, they connected both as one, so as result, it was hard to get perpetrators to show up before the TRC because they thought they would be arrested immediately after their testimonies. For instance, most child ex-soldiers did not testify for the TRC because the mandate was not clearly defined to them at the beginning. This is very important aspect to consider when establishing TRC.

· What do you see as the most positive and / or actual outcomes from your TRC process?

The TRC played a significant role in the rehabilitation and reintegration process, some perpetrators where able to find some of the victims and asked for forgiveness which tremendously helped in the healing process.

What did you personally take away from being involved in the TRC process?

From being involved in the TRC process, I personally felt satisfied with the establishment of the TRC. After reading the final report, I was motivated to help victims and witnesses testify before the Special Court.

What “tips” or “lessons learned” would like to tell others who are considering using a TRC process?

One important aspect to consider is not to have both the TRC and the Court going on at the same time. This may hinder the progress of the TRC especially create fear in perpetrators to come forward and testify before the TRC. Due to administrative delay the TRC was still calling witnesses when the Court issued warrant of arrest of some of the perpetrators, as a result, some of the perpetrators refused to show up before the TRC. Even though they had agreed and were prepared to face the Commission. Sometimes this may prevent perpetrators to talk about the crimes they committed; they might be defensive and uncover the truth.

As we are right in the middle of the Liberian TRC process, it is too early for us to draw conclusions about the impact.   Once we complete the statement taking, the US public hearings and our report to the TRC, we hope to spend some time evaluating the impact of including a diaspora population in a transitional justice process and documenting the model that we have been developing with the Liberian TRC.   Each TRC experience is and should be unique, and those who are considering setting up a TRC have a growing number of "lessons learned" to draw upon.   It has been an honor for us to contribute in a small way to the development to the field of transitional justice.  Hopefully, others will learn from our experience. 

You can learn more about the Liberian TRC, including videos and summaries of testimony from the current public hearings phase, at www.trcofliberia.org.   More information about the work of our nearly 500 TRC Diaspora Project volunteers in the United States, United Kingdom and Buduburam Refugee Settlement in Ghana, including a 7 minute video on statement taking, can be found at http://liberiatrc.mnadvocates.org/.  The Liberian TRC Diaspora Project is only one of many areas of programmatic work at The Advocates for Human Rights.  You can learn more about us and how to get involved at www.advrights.org. 

The Chairman of the Liberian TRC, Cllr. Jerome Verdier, oftens states that the TRC is only the first step in  the long process of reconciliation and accountability.  I do believe that both education and implementation of the TRC's recommendations will be critical to long-term peace building in Liberia.  The Advocates for Human Rights is committed to continuing to support transitional justice processes as a way to address past human rights abuses and ensure protection against future human rights abuses.   This month, we will also publish a new curriculum called Road to Peace:  A Teaching Guide on Local and Global Transitional Justice.   http://www.advrights.org/Road_to_Peace.html

Jennifer Prestholdt

Liberian TRC Diaspora Project

Deputy Director, The Advocates for Human Rights

Kristin Antin, New Tactics Online Community Builder

Hello participants, a community member from Kenya is requesting information on healing communities in Kenya. Please add your ideas and experiences to this request by commenting on this online dialogue:

Tactics for healing, encouraging dialogue, and reconciliation processes in Kenya

Thank you for your help!