MAJOR ELEMENTS OF TRUTH COMMISSION STRENGTH
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.
Tags: responsible government, restorative justice, retributive justice