Overview  

Truth-Seeking | Prosecutions | Reparations | Vetting


Truth-Seeking

In an increasing number of countries, local actors have begun to emphasize nonjudicial truth-seeking measures. These have often taken the form of truth commissions — official inquiries into patterns of past abuse that seek to establish an accurate historical record of events.

ICTJ staff have considerable expertise in this area, based on detailed study and prior involvement in truth commissions at senior levels. The Center has been asked to provide technical assistance in the formation and operation of many recent truth commissions, in countries as diverse as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Peru, and Sierra Leone.

Truth-seeking Efforts

A number of truth commissions have been operating over the past year, and several are close to submitting their final reports. The Peru Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the largest commission to date in numbers of staff (500 at its peak), submitted its report in August 2003. It was the first Latin American truth commission to hold public hearings, and it undertook a careful outreach strategy to explain its work, which paid off with strong public support. With numerous regional offices, it collected more than 17,000 statements from victims. It was also the first truth commission to create a "judicialization unit," which prepared case files and publicly recommended that a number of individuals be prosecuted for serious crimes.

The Ghana National Reconciliation Commission will complete its report in October 2004. When the Commission began work in late 2002, few recognized the level of abuse that had taken place during prior unconstitutional regimes, and some doubted the need for a truth commission. But the Commission received more than 4000 statements pertaining to human rights violations, including disappearances, killings, and a level of torture that few had previously realized. Through almost daily public hearings, the Commission captured widespread national attention. Close to 80 individuals accused of wrongdoing voluntarily came to the Commission to testify in response, some admitting to having committed wrongs and, in a few cases, even begging forgiveness from their victims.

In Timor-Leste, a Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation was created in 2002 to establish the truth about past human rights violations and promote reconciliation. Perpetrators of nonserious crimes (excluding rape and murder, for example) were able to take part in a community reconciliation process in which they would agree to undertake an act of reconciliation, which might include community service or making a symbolic payment after responding to victim testimony and admitting and apologizing for their crimes. The Commission facilitated hundreds of hearings across the country, took statements from thousands of victims, and undertook in-depth investigations into key aspects of the violence and repression that occurred from 1974 to 1999. Its report is due to be released in early 2005.

The Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission received more than 7000 statements and held countrywide victim and thematic hearings. Its report will be completed in late 2004. The Commission worked in parallel to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The two institutions agreed to operate independently and not to share information on cases or investigations so that each would receive information confidentially. The simultaneous operation of both institutions revealed their complementarities, but also some of the difficulties and confusion that can arise.

Future Initiatives and Considerations

In recent months, others have decided to launch truth commissions: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Morocco, Paraguay, and Greensboro, North Carolina, in the United States. Several other countries are considering setting up commissions. The ICTJ supports initiatives that develop strong investigative bodies to reveal the full truth about state or nonstate abuses that are often denied, hidden, or misunderstood. Truth commissions are challenging to establish and operate, but can be critical to learning from the past, making changes to prevent further violations, and recognizing victims. However, commissions should be created only after broad national consultation, the formulation of an appropriate mandate, and a clear political commitment to allow an independent and robust inquiry. Furthermore, when advancing account-ability for past human rights abuses, prosecutorial efforts should be strongly pursued — including strengthening local court systems — and measures to prevent future abuses should be equally prioritized.

Criminal justice is an essential part of an integrated response to massive human rights violations, and should be pursued whenever possible. While prosecutions must necessarily focus on the accused, these efforts should also aim to restore victims' dignity and public confidence in the rule of law.

On domestic prosecutions, the ICTJ has produced detailed analyses of the Special Prosecutor's Office in Mexico and the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court in Jakarta. The Center has worked closely with the Special Prosecutor in Guatemala, assisting in the development of investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity, and has advised the Peruvian Attorney General and civil society groups on strategies to investigate and prosecute crimes committed from 1980 to 2000. The ICTJ has advised the Colombian Congress and government on strategies to end impunity and preserve accountability in the context of proposals to demobilize paramilitary forces. It has also assisted the UN in preparation for a feasibility study on accountability in Burundi. More generally, it has advised mediators and civil society on the implications of amnesty legislation for criminal accountability.

On hybrid tribunals — courts with both international and domestic features — the ICTJ has conducted a study on the Serious Crimes Unit and Special Panels in Timor-Leste. It has also produced an analysis of the first year of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and worked closely with the Court on a number of issues. The Center has convened, with the Asia Society, a seminar on the Extraordinary Chambers in Cambodia, and produced a number of commentaries on the Iraqi Special Tribunal. The ICTJ has researched detailed case studies of hybrid tribunals in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste, in addition to the studies mentioned above, to produce a comprehensive policy analysis. Finally, it is in the process of producing a policy document on the completion strategy of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

The ICTJ attaches particular importance to the advent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its potential for global impact. The Center has developed a close relationship with the ICC and participated in several expert groups. The ICTJ produced a discussion paper on the Trust Fund for Victims and, with the Liu Institute for Global Studies, convened a meeting on addressing the so-called "impunity gap" to deal with perpetrators who will not be prosecuted. It has also advised mediators on the ICC's relevance to conflict mediation and on the possible creation of a rapid-reaction judicial capacity to respond to mass crimes.

Reparations

How does a nation seek to repair harm, restore rights, and build trust when victims number in the thousands over a period of many years? The ICTJ's cutting-edge research on reparations programs and its in-depth work in Peru since 2002 have placed the Center in a unique position to engage more deeply on this subject. Through its country work, the ICTJ assisted local actors in framing reparations questions appropriate to each situation, while sharing relevant information and analysis on prior and contemporary experiences.

The ICTJ continued its work in Peru, where a policy paper co-authored by APRODEH, a partner organization, served as a framework for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) reparations recommendations. The Center advised on drafts and facilitated communications about policy options and demands among the TRC, human rights organizations, and victim groups. A consultant assisted these groups with develop- ing implementation strategies. The ICTJ and APRODEH also published a paper on a proposed National Victim Registry.

As truth commissions in Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste began developing final reports and recommendations, the ICTJ responded to their requests for reparations information and analysis. Working with the CDD-Ghana, the Center held a workshop with civil society organizations to consider reparations issues and provide input to the National Reconciliation Commission (NRC). Subsequently, the ICTJ and CDD submitted a compilation of papers to the NRC addressing relevant legal principles, practical precedents, and policy options for reparations. A Peruvian consultant shared her expertise with the Timor commission, and the ICTJ also consulted on reparations issues in Colombia, Guatemala, and Morocco.

Differences in country contexts, institutional frameworks, and resources require a nuanced approach and varied policy options. Yet, the challenges are similar: defining concepts and objectives clearly; addressing financial questions; responding fairly to massive numbers of victims and a range of violations; overcoming disparities in isolated judicial remedies; and reinforcing victims' dignity by relating reparations to truth-seeking, accountability, and reform.

Reparations Research Project

The ICTJ's first flagship research project on reparations is nearing completion. A meeting of authors in the last stage of the project was held at the Rockefeller Foundation's Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy, in October 2003, reinforcing efforts to build a network of global expertise on reparations. The research results have already generated immense enthusiasm and led the International Development Research Centre to sponsor a symposium in Ottawa in March 2004. The ICTJ is working with the Centre to launch a two-year project on gender and reparations. The reparations research will be published in the summer of 2005, under the title Repairing the Past: Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Abuse, edited by Research Director Pablo de Greiff.

Volume I will contain the following case studies: Germany — reparations for the Holocaust, by A. Colonomos and A. Armstrong; Germany — compensation for forced labor, by J. Authers; the UN Compensation Commission, by H. van Houtte, H. Das, and B. Delmartino; September 11 victim compensation, by S. Issacharoff and A. Morawiec Mansfield; Japanese-Americans redress, by E. Yamamoto; Argentina — economic reparations, by M. Guembe; Chile — reparations for human rights violations, by E. Lira; Brazil — reparations program, by I. Cano and P. Ferreira; El Salvador and Haiti — truth commission reparations proposals, by A. Segovia; South Africa — reparations program, by C. Colvin; Malawi — reparations, by D. Cammack.

Volume II will contain the following thematic studies: Justice and reparations, by P. de Greiff; reparations, international law, and global justice, by R. Falk; the relevance of inter-American human rights law and practice, by A. Carrillo; reparations and civil litigation, by J. Malamud-Goti and L. Grosman; a psychological perspective on reparations, by B. Hamber; reparations for sexual violence, by C. Duggan and A.M. Abusharaf; reparations and mental health, by M.B. Lykes and M. Mersky; reparations program financing, by A. Segovia; and reparations and microfinance schemes, by H.D. Seibel and A. Armstrong.

Volume III will contain documents and legislation from 12 country studies.

Vetting

Countries undergoing a transition to democracy frequently create processes to remove abusive, corrupt, or incompetent public employees to build more effective, inclusive, and trustworthy institutions. The screening and vetting of individuals, particularly in the security and justice sectors, is widely recognized as a key measure of governance reform. However, the topic of vetting has received little systematic attention and, as a result, many processes are handled poorly and in an unfair manner.

The ICTJ's one-year research project on vetting aims to fill this gap. The Center defines "vetting" as processes that involve the examination of employment and other records for the purposes of hiring or firing. The project seeks to clarify the concept of vetting and its relationship to other transitional justice mecha-nisms; provide comprehensive information about important cases; and develop "tools" that categorize various methods of vetting different public institutions. In partnership with the Hungarian Human Rights Documentation Center, the ICTJ will produce operational guidelines for the design of vetting programs and an edited volume of case studies:

Vetting and Transitional Justice (forthcoming 2005)

"Vetting efforts in Argentina," Valeria Barbuto

"El Salvador," David Holiday

"Swift Gradualism and Variable Outcomes: Vetting in Post-authoritarian Greece," Dimitri Sotiropoulos

"When the State Chooses Not to Vet: The South African Experience in Transition, 1990–1996," Jonathan Klaaren

"Vetting Police, Judges and Prosecutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1999–2004," Alexander Mayer-Rieckh

"The Lustration Law in Poland," Adam Czarnota

"Vetting in Hungary," Peter Hack, Elizabeth Barrett, and Αgnes Munkαcsy

"Legislation between the Czech Revolution and the Rule of Law," Jiri Priban

"The Shield, the Sword, and the Party: Vetting the East German Public Sector," Christiane Wilke

Providing Strategic Vetting Advice

The ICTJ is extending the expertise and lessons from its research project to advise on the design and implementation of vetting mechanisms all over the world.

In January, at the UN's invitation, the Center visited Liberia and recommended measures to reform the fragmented security sector and vet its personnel. The ICTJ also worked with the Liberia National Law Enforcement Association to organize a conference on security sector reform and vetting to facilitate greater civil society participation.

Civil society representatives from Burundi have requested the ICTJ's advice on designing an effective vetting strategy. The Center is also planning field visits to the UN Missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Haiti.

The UN Development Programme, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have requested the ICTJ's continued assistance in providing strategic vetting advice.