World Fact Research

El Salvador has been plagued since colonial control by severe inequity in land distribution
and access to economic resources. Rigid economic inequality spurred leftist guerrillas to
organize and begin uprising in the late 1970s against the political and economic system that
benefited and protected the economic interests of the landed elite. By 1980, the government had
29launched a full, strategic counter-insurgency campaign against the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (FMLN). Backed firmly by the US government who contributed over six
billion dollars of military and economic aid to the Salvadoran government and armed forces, the
Salvadoran military was able to continue their fight against the Soviet- and Cuban-backed
guerillas for twelve years until peace was finally negotiated between the warring parties with the
assistance of a UN mediator. Over 75,000 people, mostly civilians, were killed and over 1
million (including over 300,000 refugees) were displaced. The Chapultepec Peace Accords of
January 1992 ended the civil conflict and began a long process of societal and institutional
reconstruction.
One of the accords reached between the Salvadoran government and the FMLN in the series
of agreements leading up to the final Chapultêpec signing provided for an official truth
commission that would bolster the post-conflict national reconciliation process. The April 27,
1991 Mexico Peace Agreement’s “Provisions Creating the Commission on Truth” (named for the
site of the negotiations) outlined the motivations for, functions, and powers of a truth
commission to be run by the United Nations.6° The proposed truth commission would
investigate “serious acts of violence which have occurred since 1980 and whose impact on
society urgently requires that the public should know the truth.”61 By acknowledging the
silenced victims and disclosing the reality of the violations of human rights during internal
conflict, the truth commission would ultimately seek to foster mutual understanding and
consensus and, eventually, trust between all sides involved. The parties clearly stated their two
goals for the Commission to promote national reconciliation and to uncover the factual truth of
the nature, causes, and societal impact of the violence during the conflict:
The Commission shall take into account:
30a) The exceptional importance that may be attached to the acts to be
investigated, their characteristics and impact, and the social unrest to which they
gave rise; and
(b) The need to create confidence in the positive changes which the peace
process is promoting and to assist the transition to national reconciliation. 62
The fact that both parties explicitly supported the truth commission as a reconciliation initiative
and agreed to its freedom to investigate a wide variety of serious crimes was significant gesture
of mutual commitment that boosted the legitimacy of each party and the credibility of the truth
commission even before its work had begun.
On July 15, 1992, several months after the signing of the Chapultepec Peace Accords, the
actual ComisiOn de la Verdad para El Salvador (Commission of the Truth for El Salvador) was
formally established and began its enormous and weighty task with only a six-month period in
which to conduct its investigations. The Salvadoran Truth Commission (hereafter TC) was
unique because it was the first to investigate a certain country’s civil conflict while being
sponsored, paid for, and staffed by the United Nations.63 The commission was made of three
commissioners and a staff of 20-30 lawyers at any one time: lawyers, sociologists, forensic
anthropologists, and social workers from Latin America, Europe and the United States. 64 It was
charged to investigate the entire twelve year civil war period, but possessed no juridical powers
or powers of subpoena, search, or seizure. The commission was to produce a report detailing the
conclusions reached in their pursuit of “the complete truth.” 65 In the report they were to include
recommendations for reforms and reconciliation initiatives that would be binding to the parties.
As the commission quickly found, the fresh wounds of the horrors of El Salvador’s civil war, the
distrust that perpetuated beyond the proclaimed peace of 1992, and the sharply polarized
organization of society and politics, governed by the power to instigate fear, would critically
challenge the possibility of both of the Truth Commission’s goals.

Truth Commissions are often formed in war-torn societies where reconciliation is the
ultimate goal. As described in the previous section, truth commissions theoretically aim to (1)
air the truth of the past in their final reports; (2) promote acknowledgement of that unequivocal
truth and the suffering caused; (3) empower the victims through the truth-telling experience; and,
(4) guarantee imminent measures of restorative justice in their final recommendations. The
question is whether or not these goals are realistic in practice.
There have been more than twenty truth commissions established in the past three decades of
varying scope, intent, and notability. None of these commissions has succeeded in bringing
about a “thicker” degree of national reconciliation. Should this signal to the world that the
objectives of truth commissions are simply too grandiose? Are they inherently destined to fail?
For any truth commission there are variable elements that might affect its success towards
promoting reconciliation: those of internal structure and organization of the commission, and
those of external pressures acting on the commission or on the commission’s public political
space. In establishing a truth commission, there are many decisions that must be made regarding
its structure, composition, powers, and expectations. Truth commissions purport to be promising
visa vis reconciliation, but their consequent results have fallen short of the desired end. What
accounts for the disparity between the ideal and reality of their success? Is it due to the fact that
these truth commissions are designed wrong for their specific contexts, or are inherently flawed?
Are truth commissions a worthy part of the “road to reconciliation?”
26There are five truth commissions ) most commonly and internationally recognized for their
relative success (according to the purposes set out in the mandates) and for important lessons
provided in their experiences: the commissions of Argentina (active 1983-4), Chile (1990-1), El
Salvador (1992-3), South Africa (1995-8), and Guatemala (1997-9). The contexts of the
atrocities investigated in these five countries vary considerably, therefore, the truth commissions
charged with their inquiry and analysis differed in composition, mandated powers, strengths,
specific challenges, and end objectives. In El Salvador and Guatemala, the systematic
extermination of the civilian population by the Armed Forces resulted in massive human and
material loss. El Salvador’s death toll numbered 75,000 in a country with a population of only
about 6 million. Guatemala suffered 200,000 deaths in a country of about 12 million and more
than 400 villages burned off the map. These situations of protracted civil conflict were very
different from the targeted repression, torture, and disappearance of individuals, identified as
politically left-leaning by the military regime in Chile and Argentina. Here, the repression was
clearly one-sided, perpetrated by a military dictatorship against innocent, defenseless citizens.
The dirty wars of Chile and Argentina resulted in more than 3,000 disappearances and between
50,000 and 200,000 victims of illegal detention and torture in Chile 58 and between 10,000 and
30,000 people arrested, interrogated, tortured, and killed in Argentina.
59
The circumstances of
the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission that confronted the overt,
institutionalized racism, oppression, and political marginalization of a forty-five year-old
Apartheid system present still another contrasting case with an innumerable number of victims of
human rights violations. All of these truth commission experiences can teach valuable lessons
about how best to engineer a commission for the best prospects for reconciliation. They also
“Judged by their size, the impact they had on their respective political transitions, and the national and
international attention they received.” Hayner, 32.
27exemplify the limited degree to which a truth c i
national reconciliation.
The balance of this paper explores the truth
potential facilitators of national reconciliation.
mmission can control or steer the course of
commissions of El Salvador and Guatemala as
here are three reasons that these two cases prove
worthy of analysis in the context of the above questions. Firstly, El Salvador and Guatemala are
severe conflict cases of political polarization, massive human cost, and societal break-down. At
the conclusion of their civil conflicts, they were in desperate need of healing and reconciliation at
the societal and political levels. Both countries became good tests for truth commissions’
potentials and power to initiate and further national reconciliation. Secondly, the Salvadoran and
Guatemalan truth commissions are two of the five most recent, prominent truth commissions
listed above. Accordingly, they were designed with the knowledge of valuable lessons from
previous truth commissions. Thirdly, the experiences of the Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth
commissions may provide lessons regarding structure and external politics for future
commissions emerging from similar contexts.
It is true that each tragic case of atrocities for which a truth commission has been established
occurs in a context unique to that place and time. Still, the contexts, experience, and challenges
of these two truth commissions, may be the two most relevant commissions to present-day truth
commission initiatives in Sierra Leone, Bosnia, and Rwanda. Truth commissions in El Salvador
and Guatemala were established as part of a comprehensive peace process, as in the case of
Sierra Leone, in order to heal a deeply polarized polity and social fabric torn by protracted civil
conflict, like those in the Balkans and in the Lakes region of central Africa.
The two Central American cases of El Salvador and Guatemala provide an interesting
comparative study. In these cases, truth commissions were established during peace accord
28negotiations and in the context of parallel political, military, and social conflict. In both
countries, the conservative-right government utilized the national army and paramilitary forces to
fight a counterinsurgency campaign, framed in the context of the Cold War, against leftist
guerillas and a perceived popular base. In both cases a civilian population found themselves
caught in the middle and fell victim to the severest brutality. A permeating culture of violence,
distrust, and fear made the issue of national reconciliation a central issue during peace accord
negotiation, an essential goal for post-accord measures, and an overwhelming future challenge.
The Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth commissions were created in order to help foster
reconciliation between political enemies of war and between the powerless victims and their
power-holding perpetrators. Facing the truth of the past would hopefully help the country to
look inside itself and examine its problems, reconcile with itself, and commit to new human
rights standards for the future. The crucial reports of the Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth
commissions were released to the public and to the parties of the peace accords twelve and seven
years ago, respectively. Before progressing to an evaluation of the consequent effectiveness of
these truth commissions and their reports towards reconciliation, this paper will provide a brief
historical overview of the conflict and establishment of a truth commission in each country.

Truth commissions are examples of a restorative justice initiative. Many commend truth and
reconciliation commissions for having advanced beyond penal, retributive justice to restorative
justice. 53 In allowing perpetrators, victims, their families, and witnesses to testify, truth
commissions are uniquely rehabilitative to all sides, promoting the value of concern and respect
for all those who demonstrate genuine mercy. Sarkin notes the power of restorative justice
achieved in truth commission work: “[truth commissions] satisfy the retribution impulse by
dispensing punishment…The naming of perpetrators and the exposure of their violations
constitutes punishment through public stigma, shaming, and humiliation.” 54
Timing and length of operation outlined in each commission’s mandate can assist or hinder a
more thorough and widespread collection of information and a more credible and fair
representation of the past. Generally, the more time given for the investigation, the more
witnesses reached and/or the more quality time devoted to each witness, the more revealing and
convincing the truth established, and the greater the prospects are for reconciliation. It is
advisable to begin work when momentum for peace and optimism is fresh. However, charging
ahead prematurely - before the previous authority’s influence in politics have waned or when
22victims’ wounds are too recent and fears too real - can increase the commission’s politicization
and decrease public confidence and participation. If traces of violence from the conflict are still
occurring, physical safety concerns could ward off traveling truth-testifiers. As Sarkin points
out, “the extent to which a truth and reconciliation commission process is established by the new
order, in cooperation with those who were vanquished, plays an important part in determining
whether such a process can assist in national reconciliation.” 55 Commission mandate time
limitations range from only a few months to as much as several years.
The amount of funding that a truth commission receives — from its national government,
international funds, and foreign governments — can affect the efficacy of the commission as well,
by limiting or allowing for a large staff on the job, for example. In addition, certain powers
specified in a commission’s mandate, like those of subpoena or search and seizure, can allow
commissions to bring previously secret, incriminating information to the surface. This disrupts
traditions of deceit and denial of illegitimate activity on the part of the authorities. Possession or
exclusion of such powers can alter the depth of truth that is revealed and the level of
accountability the commission is able to impose on guilty parties.
Sponsorship and leadership involving diverse actors can legitimate a truth commission in the
eyes of the victimized public and international community. All truth commissions are officially-
sanctioned bodies and many of them are jointly-sanctioned via peace accords signed by both the
government and the opposition. This is significant in setting the tone for reconciliation. The
establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission that would expose their crimes is
certainly not in their political interest. The fact that the government (along with the former
opposition party in some cases) mandates such a commission demonstrates a change in political
behavior: a commitment to societal healing and reconciliation. They are often pushed by human
23rights workers56 advocating for the victims’ rights and by the international community concerned
about guaranteeing a reconciliation that will better ensure the country’s stability. Even the step
of coming together as former political enemies to explore the creation of a truth commission,
dialoguing and discussing the goals and mandates of such a commission, and finally committing
to its establishment in an officially-signed mutual agreement fosters communication,
cooperation, and trust. The commissioners are chosen specifically in each context to be able to
exercise unbiased leadership and, thus, lend legitimacy and public confidence to the
commission’s work. Due to the fact that both Guatemala and El Salvador were substantially
politically-polarized, the majority of the commissioners were foreigners appointed by the UN. In
the Guatemalan case, only one out of three commissioners was a Guatemalan national, while in
El Salvador only foreigners served as the three commissioners. Public opinion of truth
commissioners undoubtedly influences the public’s approval of the entire truth commission
initiative. The public’s attitude toward the truth commission and its report clearly affect their
ensuing ownership of post-commission reconciliation programs and whether its general attitude
toward reconciliation is optimistic or skeptical.
Publicity, widespread publication, and high readership of the concluding report affect how
widely the truth comes to be known and how well reconciliation can take hold as a movement in
the country. Jacques highlights their educational contribution in exposing the fact of massive or
systemic human rights violations, condemning such immoral abuses, and identifying the pre-
conditions that led to such atrocity. 57 The conclusions of the report are an especially important
contribution to the potential for reconciliation. The recommendations and reforms asserted in
this section can be a simple set of guidelines for preventing recurrence of injustice or an
ambitious recipe for a just society and responsible government. Their strength, particularly, can
24indicate the pressure on government political parties and civil society to implement these
measures. Truth commissions, however, can only go so far as to state these ground-breaking
ideas and make their case of why they are essential for sustainable peace and reconciliation. In
the end, long term benefits of the truth commissions depend significantly on the follow-up: the
extent to which the recommendations and reforms are implemented by subsequent governments
and pursued by civil society.

Some criticize the usage of truth commissions because of the commission’s inability to
establish legal responsibility and, thus, take a soft approach to justice. Truth and reconciliation
commissions have been referred to as a “second-best alternative” to punitive trials. However,
such a sweeping assessment lacks insight into the context in which each truth commission is
created. It assumes that punitive court trials are the best route to justice. This criticism of truth
commissions as merely a “second-best” method of pursuing justice, behind criminal trials, is
unwarranted.
In the vast majority of truth commission cases, trials have not even been a realistic option for
pursuing justice and reconciliation. If the national judicial system is inefficient, corrupt, or not
reliably independent of political pressuring, the “justice” that results could be even more
problematic. Trials against perpetrators will be too infrequent and isolated in order to benefit a
national-level sentiment toward reconciliation, or will result in disappointing negative or soft
20verdicts. Most of the time, however, a weak judiciary system fails to call perpetrators to court.
In other cases, laws or the threat of new amnesty laws impedes or precludes prosecution. Thus, a
truth commission becomes the only unbiased official body that can investigate and contribute to
accountability by assigning responsibility to individuals or institutions. Truth commissions may
also emerge as the favored avenue for establishing accountability when legal prosecution poses
the risk of further dividing society or disrupting a fragile democracy by provoking remerging
polarization of the country and ensuing uprising. 51
Even though truth commissions cannot label these criminals with official judicial convictions
and punishments, the criminals named or the institutions incriminated in the report are still held
to some level of accountability. If perpetrator identities are publicly known, the people can hold
them accountable for their guilt through the nonviolent retribution of public shaming, insults, and
refusing them service. In order to maximize truth commissions’ contribution to accountability,
the identities of the perpetrators need to be accessible to the public. A list of the perpetrators’
names in the final report, as in the Salvadoran case, is potentially the most significant conclusion
that a commission can print. Naming names immediately to build a base level of accountability
is especially critical when the politically-charged and manipulated judicial system has no hope of
producing just verdicts, much less of prosecuting the perpetrators.
It is not fair to criticize truth commissions based on the goals of punitive trials because their
functions and outcomes are fundamentally designed to be different and complementary. Truth
commissions were not created to legally convict and sentence perpetrators. “Truth commissions
are meant to function as moral panels, not legal courts, “52 according to Jose Zalaquett, a
prominent international rights advocate and former member of the Chilean truth and
reconciliation commission. If truth commissions attempted to assign punishment, they would be
21overstepping their legal bounds and breaking the rule of law. Additionally, during the period of
delicate peace and sensitive political moves that follow cessation of violence, the fact that truth
commissions do not have the power to punish actually makes them less objectionable than trials
in the eyes of the military and government institutions. These damaged societies and countries
need every pro-reconciliation initiative and healing opportunity to reconstruct their lives,
relationships, and trust.

In her book, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, Martha Minow affirms her belief in truth
commissions’ comparative potential to contribute to reconciliation due to their power to aid
societal healing: “When the societal goals include restoring dignity to victims offering a basis for
17individual healing, and also promoting reconciliation across a divided nation, a truth commission
again may be as or more powerful than prosecutions.” One of the three commissioners on the
United Nations-led Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Thomas Buergenthal, reported in
his assessment of the experience that
many of the people who came to talk to the Commission to tell what happened to them or their
relatives and friends had not done so before. For some, ten years or more had gone by in silence
and pent-up anger. Finally, someone listened to them, and there would be a record of what they
had endured. They came by the thousands, still afraid and not a little skeptical, and they talked,
many for the first time. One could not listen to them without recognizing that the mere act of
telling what had happened was a healing emotional release, and that they were more interested in
recounting their story and being heard than in retribution. It is as if they felt some shame that they
had not dared to speak out before and, now that they had done so, they could go home and focus
on the future less encumbered by the past. 45
Jacques makes two important points. The first is that “People turn to memory in the search
for elements to help them to situate themselves in the present and to project themselves into the
future.”46 Accordingly, she then states that “Everyone’s memory is selective. Each of us builds
on an interpretation of what he or she remembers.” 47 If people identify themselves based on the
horrifying, dehumanizing experiences of human rights abuses and atrocities that dominate their
memories, they will feel of degraded status and begin to dismiss their essential human worth.
These victims suffer the psychosocial problems of negative self-image, hopelessness, and fear of
the violence recurring in their memories that perpetuate pain even further. John Paul Lederach
addresses these issues in the passage below, explaining that reconciliation involves coming to
terms with the reality of one’s past and reconsidering one’s own identity visa vis society.
Reconciliation … orients its energy toward understanding the deeper psychological and subjective
aspects of people’s experiences, not just in connection to their recent past but often based on
generation of pain, loss, and suffering. Reconciliation requires that people not only decide what to
do about particular issues, but also address and reconsider their understanding of self, community,
and enemy. 48
18This deeply personal reprocessing of identity and reconciling with the “other(s)” is relevant to all
sides of the conflict. For victims, it is significant that their defining image of themselves does
not remain a restrictive “victim” identity with the help of an individual reconciliation process.
Kimberly A. Maynard identifies in her essay, “Rebuilding Community: Psychosocial
Healing, Reintegration, and Reconciliation at the Grassroots Level,” five phases of psychosocial
recovery for societies that are rebuilding after internal conflict. She lists:
1) Establishing safety
2) Communalization (the act of sharing traumatic experiences, perceptions, resulting
emotions, etc. in a safe environment) and Bereavement
3) Rebuilding trust and the capacity to trust
4) Reestablishing personal and social morality
5) Reintegrating and restoring democratic discourse. 49
Given these guidelines for reconciliation, truth commissions are an appropriate model. Truth
commissions aim to provide a safe space where the fear-dominated, victimized, and hidden
members of society can reappear and unload the trauma they have been carrying on their backs.
By listening to these victims and validating their experiences as nothing less than inhumane, the
commission helps to humanize the desperate and degraded. Rehabilitating the confidence and
security of individuals, as the truth commission does one at a time, is essential. These individual
members of society are the building blocks of greater communities on which the possibility for
reconciliation hinges.
One occasionally controversial issue of truth commission proceedings is the potentially
painful emotional and psychological personal impact of truth-telling. If one learns the true story
of a loved one’s death or torture, including the identity of the one responsible for their agony, the
emotional burden can be intense. Individuals’ reactions to the experience of truth-telling vary
greatly. Re-hashing the painful memories forces some people to slide back into wrenching
nightmares, flashbacks, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Given this, some critics of
19truth commissions believe that it is better to “leave the past behind than reopen old wounds.”5°
When the sense of resolve is founded on high expectations for the consequences to the
victimizer(s), and the victimizer(s) is neither prosecuted, suspended from his political position,
nor even mentioned in the truth commission report, justice ignored means no resolution and yet
another defeat for the victim or witness. Still, the simple opportunity to speak and be heard can
be a cathartic experience for many victims. Truth commissions, not trials, are official bodies that
finally give primary attention to the victims. The overall consensus is that truth commissions
offer significant psychological reward long-term and do much more good than harm for the
victimized and for society at large

Truthtelling is delicado (delicate), as the saying goes in
Guatemala, as it means making judgments about what is and what
is not important about the past and the future.
- Jennifer Schrimer34
Priscilla Hayner, author of Unspeakable Truths: Confronting State Terror and Atrocity,
supports the turn toward truth commissions as official bodies that facilitate safe, truth testimony
14and seek to unearth the truth lying silently under the terrible secrets of the past. As Audrey
Chapman and Patrick Ball clarify, “the importance of truth commissions might be described as
acknowledging the truth rather than finding the truth.” 35 Establishing an ample, genuine history
of the citizens of the country is an indispensable key to reconciliation. The people must first
understand fully from what painful memories the country needs to heal and with whom it needs
to reconcile.
Truth commissions are temporary, non-judicial investigatory bodies that are usually formed
during political transition or reform and after cessation of violent internal conflict. During such
periods of tenuous peace, uncertainty with how to deal with the past, and insecurity of the future,
truth commissions emerge as mechanisms to provide some clarity, direction, and goals. They
focus on the past, identifying patterns of abuse and human rights violations over a specific
segment of history. Commissioners sift through evidence and documents and gather personal
testimonies from different sides of the conflict and regions of the country. Truth commissions
delve thoroughly into the details of the tactics used, acts committed, detention center locations,
and perpetrator identities. They can investigate a wide range and large number of cases. They
discern overall patterns, institutional context, and general causes and consequences of
atrocities. 36 Truth commissions have no jurisdiction to officially judge and claim the guilt of
those identified as perpetrators and usually lack the power of subpoena. However, they look at
the broader responsibility of certain negative social and economic forces and at the root causes of
state political polarization and discrimination. They identify dangerous political, social, or
cultural patterns of exploitation, corruption, and violence. Finally, at the end of their term truth
commissions submit a report that reveals their findings and makes conclusions and
recommendations. The reality is that the commissions have the awesome responsibility writing
15or re-writing history. As Chapman and Ball explain, “the documentation and interpretation of
truth is more complex and ambiguous than many analysts and proponents of truth commissions
assume. Social, technical, and methodological constraints, as well as epistemological limitations
of what can be known, all affect a commission’s ability to produce an authoritative account.” 37
Sarkin highlights, “Even though there cannot be one final “objective truth” it is critical that the
version of ‘the truth’ arrived at by the commission embraces the experience of all.” 38
The idealism required and the intention to foster reconciliation is inherent in the truth
commissions. The principle components of reconciliation — truth, acknowledgement,
accountability, and justice — appear clearly below in what Priscilla Hayner outlines as the four
main purposes for all truth commissions:
(1) to clarify and acknowledge the truth;
(2) to contribute to justice and accountability;
(3) to outline institutional responsibility and recommended reforms; and
(4) to promote reconciliation and reduce tensions resulting from past violence. 39
The extent to which a truth commission is successful according to these objectives can depend
on certain aspects of the truth commission itself and on independent factors like national political
context, social climate, and international pressure. Truth commissions do not operate in a
vacuum and, therefore, they will inevitably face political limitations. However, considering the
legacy of impunity or corruption in the judicial systems of the majority of these countries, truth
commissions may have the most hope of any official reconciliation initiative to contribute to
individual and national reconciliation.
Truth-telling is both a personal and collective experience. It is an experience with both
individual and communal/national goals, challenges, pain, relief, and necessity. However, truth is
a demand made firstly for the benefit of the victims. 40 Victims, their families, and witnesses feel
a need, on the one hand, to tell and to be heard, but are afraid to be exposed.’” Truth
16commissions secure a safe space for truth-telling. As Bishop Biggar explains, “The discovery of
the truth also helps the victim to understand her suffering…and suffering that we can
comprehend is usually easier to bear.” 42 Truth-telling is a worthy tool of empowerment because
victims break out of their cage of silence. They challenge the fear that has kept them isolated
and finally talk out the pain. They can finally be true to themselves and express what they really
feel. As Jacques explains, power of truth-telling comes from breaking out of silence, isolation,
and shame imposed by those who have wounded them. 43
Truth-telling also has the very practical function of clarifying history. From witness and
victim testimonies come immense quantities of valuable details from the horrors that have
remained very vivid in their memories. With an abundant amount of stories, together they reveal
patterns, trends, and various statistical estimates dealing with the violence. They help the
country’s people and the international community better understand the nature of the conflict and
responsibilities for violence. Furthermore, these many stories together paint a grander historical
narrative that honors the memory of these long-silenced victims and survivors. Jacques quotes
from Paul Ricoeur’s Temps et recit (Time and Narrative), “There are crimes which must not be
forgotten, victims whose suffering cries out not so much to be avenged as to be told.” 44 Being
able to tell the truth does not mean that their pain and anxiety will vanish, but it does mean that
their stories do not go unnoticed; they become part of the shared, national memory.

The process of reconciliation must include justice: accountability for perpetrators and the
righting of wrongs committed against innocent civilians. “The ultimate goal of justice is…to
make peace — by repairing damage, protecting victims, and reforming criminals — both apart
from, and also through, retributive punishment,”29 according to Bishop Nigel Biggar. People of
traumatized societies, like those of El Salvador and Guatemala, yearn for a sense that justice has
been done following tremendous violations of human rights, especially committed by
governmental authority. They ache for a definitive resolution. Genevieve Jacques explains, “the
victims need public recognition of the wrongs they have suffered and need to see those
responsible identified, named, and held to account.”
Punishing the guilty has the potential to bring a clear sense of relief and resolution — a sense
that justice has been done — to the victims, families, and general public. After suffering direct
damage or the death of a loved one, it is common to want retribution. The goal is that victims
and families who feel a need to inflict revenge may do so peacefully through the court system,
rather than resorting to one’s own devices. Instead of committing another wrong in response, the
wrong is righted. Court convictions of those responsible for disappearances and torture can be
rehabilitating and give a sense of protection to the families and friends of the victims.
30
Other
punitive measures could include removal from office or public service or obligation of financial
compensation to the victims or families. Agents of such punitive methods of justice argue that
12the convicted “got what they deserved” — social stigma, moral humiliation, and restrictions of
freedom. They are troubled by the perpetrator’s lack of feeling and sympathy in his/her exertion
of power over the victim. Punishment can potentially relieve family of the victim’s emotional
pain because it finally reverses the power relationship. The conviction functions to exert power
over the perpetrator and deny him/her sympathy. Just as the victim and his/her loved ones were
consequently held captive psychologically, emotionally, and physically by the violence inflicted
upon him/her, the perpetrator must be held captive, bound to his own actions, and denied
freedom and human dignity. The victim’s power and sympathy from the authority and society
are restored.
Effective justice comes in other forms besides the above retributive criminal trial method.
Favoring a more constructive restorative justice, Bishop Biggar argues, “Justice is primarily not
about the punishment of the perpetrator, but about the vindication of the victims, both direct and
indirect.”31 Minow writes about the reparative value of restorative justice that it is essential for
national reconciliation of different sectors of society:
Restorative justice emphasizes the humanity of both offenders and victims. It seeks to repair
social connections and peace rather than retribution against the offenders. Building connections
and enhancing communications between perpetrators and those victimized, and forging ties across
the community, takes precedence over punishment or law enforcement. 32
These aims of restorative justice reflect a practical view about human psychology. They are
unlike retributive approaches, which require inflicting suffering of another in order to raise one’s
self up, but may reinforce anger. In contrast, reparative approaches instead aim to help victims
move beyond anger, a sense of powerlessness, and destructive desire for revenge. Restorative
justice specifically seeks to stop a cycle of violence, while empowering the victimized. Typical
restorative justice measures include the exhumation, return, and reburial of relatives’ remains,
the opportunity to tell their stories of suffering publicly, and compensation or reparations to
13victims and families. It is important that when speaking about reconciliation and justice,
punitive court trials are not the only mechanism seen as pursuing justice. Any method used that
raises up the dignity of the victims after having been dehumanized by the offender or holds the
perpetrators accountable to their wrongful acts, furthers the ideal of justice.
Given the above explanation of reconciliation as both a goal to which conflicting parties
should aspire and a process, encompassing three vital ideals of truth, acknowledgment, and
justice, it’s now pertinent to explore truth commissions’ potentials for demonstrating and
promoting these goals of reconciliation. While some truth commissions have earned respect as
model commissions investigating the past, there are no binding rules of structure. Each of the
more than twenty truth commissions established around the world since 1973 is unique. 33 Truth
commissions in general, however, have the same overarching goal of airing the truth of the past
in order to facilitate societal and individual-level healing and reconciliation in the future. A truth
commission can be more or less nurturing of reconciliation, partly depending on its specific
context, structure, and mandates. Still, truth commissions have great potential to make
significant progress towards ideals of truth, acknowledgement, and restorative justice

Once a more complete unbiased truth of the past atrocities has been revealed society must
acknowledge its value as the truth. Acknowledging is distinct from just knowing because it
10requires an added element of action. Acknowledging the truth implies actively recognizing the
truth to oneself, being able to volunteer this truth aloud to the public and to the victim, and
feeling affected by this truth. Acknowledging information once conscious of it is the opposite of
choosing to ignore it. Trudy Govier describes acknowledgement as “a necessary condition of
willingness to make restitution and commit to positive change.” 27
Following devastating internal conflict that either divided the country or rose out of existing
divisions, it is important that the government and guilty parties extend gestures of
acknowledgment to the victims. The gestures might include official apologies, reparations
including compensation and social services, and enactment of systemic reforms that address
injustice at the root of conflict. “Ignoring history leads to collective amnesia, which is not only
unhealthy for the body politic but essentially an illusion: an unresolved past will inevitably return
to haunt citizens,”28 warns Jeremy Sarkin. Victims are silenced, socially marginalized, and
brought down to a sub-human level by horrible offenses to their pride. However,
acknowledgement of the victims and the brutal crimes committed against them means
recognizing the dignity of the victims once again. Genuine attention in this way helps restore
this essential human dignity and facilitates their personal healing. It provides initial
empowerment for the victims. Victims need some base level of confidence in order to seek out
reconciliation with their perpetrators. On the perpetrator side, official acknowledgment of the
victims and the crimes they perpetrated discourages denial. It pushes guilty parties to see the
cruel reality of their acts and to face their long-avoided moral conscience. Many combatants or
officials never want their children to get involved in the same gruesome violence. Recognizing
that his/her acts were wrong may lead them to guard against them in the future. Once this hope
in and commitment to change is engendered in all sectors of the population that participated in or
1 1were affected by the former conflict, reconciliation for the sake of future generations may indeed
be possible.

To seek the truth, to know the truth, to tell the truth —
for those who have endured the dark times of repression or conflict
this is the first requirement, a vital, existential need.
- Genevieve Jacques
Seeking and establishing the truth about atrocities committed during prolonged internal
conflicts is not only essential to reconciliation, but is the first step that must be taken before other
vital parts of reconciliation will be able to follow. This need for truth in order for reconciliation
7presents certain challenges of pursuing an ideal so ambiguous and obscure. There is not one
truth to be found. Many different truths exist within a country of diverse realities. There are
different kinds of truth as well and some are more easily arrived at or explained than others. The
two most prominently recognized branches are “forensic truth” (or factual truth) — the acts
committed by whom, to whom, and when — and “emotional truth” — an understanding of
psychological and physical impact of such fear and violence on the victims and their
communities. 16 Another type of truth relevant here to reconciliation, includes plausible
interpretations of the causes of the original conflict and escalating violence and an analysis of the
historical, social, political, and cultural context of the conflict. 17
Establishing the truth is an intricate process more accurately described as clarifying history
based on a wide range of perspectives rather than finding the “one” truth. To ‘find the truth’
sounds like an absolute, terminable project, whereas clarifying history based on many truthful
narratives is an endeavor than never has a definitive end.
Developing an official authoritative account of a contested past, and especially doing so in an
objective and careful manner consistent with strict standards of historical and social science
research, requires far more than accumulating anecdotal evidence to support widely held beliefs
about what has happened and who is responsible.”"
By establishing or clarifying the truth of the past, the corrupt, systemized practice of
secrecy, deceit, and denial is exposed and undermined. Once the implicated institutions or guilty
individuals are revealed, they are newly vulnerable to pressure from civil society, constituents,
and the international community to apologize and reform. If those implicated in atrocities can
demonstrate genuine remorse and reform, as determined by the victims themselves, they will be
able to begin to (re)gain the public’s trust — a pivotal piece of reconciliation. As Christian
Tomuschat affirms,
…no government is entitled to hide the truth about its own involvement in a conflict, or the
involvement of a predecessor regime. Only on the basis of the full truth can a people learn from
the past and immunize itself against the danger of falling into the same trap as before. °
8Publicizing and educating a fuller, truer, impartial history prevents recurrence of tragedy. A
historical narrative that consults those who have been traditionally marginalized and integrates
their memory into a revised representation of a country’s history is more respectful of the distinct
cultures within that country. At the same time, it seeks to unify the state under a fully
participatory exercise of writing history. Jacques explains the importance of constructing a
shared historical memory that lifts up the victim’s humanity out of the shadows of secrecy.
Awareness of and a sense of joint responsibility for how history has unfolded can come about
only through the gradual construction of a “shared memory” which does not try to conceal either
the victims or the guilty, the crimes or the acts of courage. Only in this way can a process of
genuine reconciliation become possible, founded on recognition of each by the other. 2°
Constructing a state’s national memory that includes, shares, and upholds the value of the varied
experiences of its citizens, allows each person equal recognition. Leveling the power
relationship between the victims and the guilty is the objective here; it helps to facilitate cross-
sector communication and mutual cooperation in the future.
If a tradition of keeping the truth public and accessible is planted and continues to be
supported, society will become more open and trusting and reconciliation of the past may be
possible. Truth should not solely be upheld because of its healing potential, but because — more
importantly — it is a basic human right. Michelle Parlevliet supports this with evidence from the
UN’s recognition of the right to truth:
Internationally, a ‘right to truth’ is now recognized for both societies and individuals. For the
former, it is considered essential to avoid the repetition of crimes in the future. For the latter, it is
part of an effective remedy for violations. This right is included in a set of principles prepared for
the United Nations with a view to combating impunity. 21
Establishing the truth is critical to reconciliation because it helps the families and
communities mourn the loss of their loved ones with a better understanding of the circumstances
and broader context of their deaths. A lack of answers prevents those left behind from entering
into an effective, vital grieving process. 22 To many indigenous peoples, including the Maya who
9suffered most of the 45,000 disappearances during the Guatemalan civil war, it is an offense and
outrage not to be able to carry out essential rites of mourning. 23 The final report of Guatemala’s
truth commission, the Commission on Historical Clarification explains:
For all cultures and religions in Guatemala, it is practically inconceivable that the dead not be
given a dignified burial; this assaults everyone’s values and dignity…The CHC has concluded that
the existence of clandestine and hidden cemeteries, as well as the anxiety suffered by many
Guatemalans as a result of not knowing what happened to their relatives, remains an open wound
in the country. They are a permanent reminder of the acts of violence that denied the dignity of
their loved ones. 24
In the midst of such confidence in truth’s virtues visa vis reconciliation, this optimism
should not purport a direct causal relationship between ‘truth revealed’ and ‘reconciliation
achieved.’ Tuomas Forsberg cautions against idealistic slogans such as “Truth is a road to
reconciliation” 25 because there is no certainty that the revelation of truth leads directly to healing
and rebuilding a shattered past. 26 Establishing the truth does not necessarily bring about
reconciliation because there are a host of outside factors at play. The immediate watershed effect
of the truth-revealed on reconciliation depends on the reaction of various sectors of society
(government, civil society, public, etc.) and whether or not they are spurred to act. If such truths
are ignored, the positive effects of truth-telling on reconciliation will likely be negligent. If the
truth is effectively recognized, sparking a movement for remembrance and restorative justice,
and if the government does not block retributive justice in the courts for the victims, the truth
could lead directly and swiftly to valuable levels of reconciliation.

community are all viable actors in the post-conflict period. They explore, initiate, and drive
different programs or actions that hope to facilitate reconciliation.
The broad concept of reconciliation may also be distinguished by two different spheres in
which it operates: the macro-level and the micro-leve1. 10 Macro-level reconciliation is often
synonymous with “national” or “political” reconciliation between groups of people, parties,
institutions, or nations, while micro-reconciliation refers to individual, local relationships il
between, for example, victim and perpetrator. A distinction is important because the experience
of and the methods used for these two categories of reconciliation can differ significantly. The
extent to which people can feel reconciled and the extent to which reconciliation may be possible
at these two different levels often vary. One criminal trial that successfully punishes a certain
perpetrator may advance individual reconciliation for the family of the one direct victim, but it
may not advance a sense of national reconciliation very far until isolated convictions become a
national movement against impunity. Similarly, memorials erected in memory of the victims or
official, public apologies coming from the responsible authorities can be important moves for
national reconciliation that help people (re)build trust among each other and with their
governmental institutions. However, any single victim of a human rights violation may argue
that such steps, although helpful for national reconciliation, still do not assist his/her struggle to
feel reconciled with his/her own perpetrator. For many victims, micro-level reconciliation may
plainly be psychologically impossible. 12 More hope may exist for national reconciliation in the
long term, provided that the country continues to actively engage in reconciliation efforts.
Reconciliation begins with society’s commitment to remember the past instead of forget it.
Remembering can be painful, especially for victims who feel alone, isolated, and helpless in their
grief and fear. People may feel inclined to push these memories of trauma or violence away
5from one’s consciousness and disassociate them from one’s past. The government and parties
guilty of committing atrocities look for quick options to forget the unpleasant past and to “move
on,” allowing a return to the status quo. However, Bishop Nigel Biggar outlines three clear
reasons why a policy of forgetting, a reaction all too common by governments of internal
conflict-torn states, is not just, practical, or preventative:
First, some may be able to forget; but not, I think, the victims. Second, if government does not
attend to the victims and their injuries, then it fails in one of its most basic political
duties…protecting and upholding victims of injury…And Third, grievances without redress tend
to fester…infect[ing] future generations with an indiscriminate hatred of the perpetrators and their
descendants — and also with an endemic mistrust of the state. 13
Forgetting the past in this way would be submission to the power of the same institutions and
individuals who engineered and committed such injustice. It permits legacies of secrecy and
denial and allows cycles of violence to continue without consequence. The guilty parties often
pursue a “reconciliation” that serves their own political agenda, promoting the idea of pardons
and amnesties as signs of forgiveness. They will push forgiveness between victims and
perpetrators prematurely in order to claim “reconciliation,” and, thus, favor among constituents.
This, no doubt, is false reconciliation. In order for national reconciliation, all sectors of society
must agree that they feel reconciled. However, an agenda of amnesties for perpetrators,
disingenuous apologies, scarce cooperation to find the truth, and no attention to the victims’
post-conflict needs for justice leaves the victims behind. In order to feel truly reconciled, victims
and their families often need a very different agenda: prosecution and punishment.” Collective
exercises in memory provide these victims with the hope of recognition and empowerment. The
active participation of authority figures in initiatives for the exposure of the truth,
acknowledgment of the victims of abuse, and the pursuit of justice for the resurrection of the
victims are essential in order to aspire to their eventual goal of reconciliation.
6Reconciliation requires three essential components: full knowledge of the truth of the past,
acknowledgement of the victims’ suffering, and justice for the victims and for society as a whole.
Guilty parties must demonstrate genuine regret for and change from the past in order to gain or
regain trust. Victims need opportunities to win back their dignity and their humanity, evidence
that society recognizes their value, and new confidence to face their past and reconcile with the
very individuals that caused them harm. Achieving trust and stability between individuals and
among communities contributes to a stronger statewide reconciliation movement.
Carol A. Prager reminds us of the realistic limitations of any one initiative due to the
painstaking, long-term nature of true reconciliation: “that fact that reconciliation is not
terminated by the conclusions of war crimes trials or truth and reconciliation commissions must
be faced. Reconciliation is never achieved once and for all, but occurs with alternate bouts of
forward movement and the stasis of anger and grieving.” 15 Thus, it is crucial not to set one’s
expectations of truth commissions (or any other single measure) too high and risk
disillusionment, but neither should one dismiss the positive value and the contributions it can
have as an initial step in a series of efforts towards reconciliation.